Is the ECHR fit for purpose? Russia is a member state of the ECHR as are other nations like Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey. Is the ECHR preventing human rights abuses in Russia, Turkey and elsewhere?
Meanwhile plenty of other developed nations like Canada, Australia and New Zealand and not members of the ECHR.
Do you believe Cyclefree that human rights are better in Turkey and Russia or in Australia and Canada?
In his Reith lectures Sumption gave a very good example of the problem. The first decision that prisoners should have the vote was based upon the premise that Parliament could not have given the matter adequate consideration. Parliament duly did and the near unanimous decision was that prisoners should not have the vote. The second time around the ECt HR decided that such a conclusion was not compatible with the Convention and was therefore wrong as a matter of law. The democratic decision of Parliament was therefore overruled. So far the UK has largely ignored this decision although there has been some movement by the Scottish Parliament.
The view of the ECt HR is that there is an inadequate link between the removal of liberty and the loss of the right to vote. The UK Parliament disagrees and is of the view that a criminal offence sufficiently serious to involve the right to liberty involves the loss of ancillary rights such as the right to vote for the duration of the sentence. You can make an argument either way but the underlying question is whether this is a question of law or democracy. This is the problem with ECHR. It limits democratic choice.
The Guardian live blog has an update on government efforts to boost ventilator production. Sounds like manufacturers are already working on this, as you'd hope.
I really would have hoped they had done this 2-3 weeks ago. Lets just hope they can get a load made before the bomb goes off. It is clear from that link, that Boris has now told them if you make it, we will buy it. Hopefully it is possible to ramp up production.
Not yet - the call is not until Monday. Although why we have to wait until after a weekend stumps me.
Monday is probably making official what is already happening. Just as the last Monday Cobra meeting was really the culmination of a huge amount of work that began in January.
I hope so. A crisis like this is no respoecter of weekends
I see Carole Conspiracy has been deleting her more crazed tweets.
Any associated apologies?
I can't work out whether it's the pushing her minimal-evidence make-the-wild-connection-anyway theories that annoys me more, or the fact she usually seems to completely ignore the people who call her out on them (or worse than ignoring, just blast a tenuous ad hom at them rather than taking their point on board), or the fact that whenever she does pay attention to the corrections and decide to withdraw some of her claims (was going to say "her wilder claims" but actually I've never spotted a clear correlation between the stupidity of what she's suggesting and her probability of retracting it) her method of choice seems to be just going back and deleting a tweet as if the whole thing never happened, rather than any public acknowledgement of what she got wrong, why and just how sorry she is (to the people she accused or the ones she misled).
I hate myself a bit for looking at her twitter feed, but when you look at the number of likes and retweets she gets, you have to remember that she's a conduit of "information" for very many people, including lots of other journalists or media commentators. If you want to see where Teh Stupid is coming from, it's often a good idea to look at source.
Ms Cyclefree, could I suggest you save these very lengthy articles for July after coronavirus has peaked as they are not getting full attention at the moment
You’re assuming things will be back to normal in July. And I don’t decide when they are published. Plus I may be gone by then.
Did any of our experts answer Cyclefree's question about whether oxygen concentrators are a useful tool to have around?
From what I have read from Italy, CPAP is not good. It seems to aerosol the virus also.
Pure oxygen by mask or nasal prongs may well be beneficial. Limited supply though.
It is my husband who is urging me to buy one. They are available on Amazon. But I have no idea whether this is a daft idea or not and he has no medical expertise.
Last time she levered a bunch of concessions out of Hillary on policy and personnel in exchange for not running against her, maybe that's what's happening here. In return she endorses, or doesn't endorse Bernie, or maybe even stays and runs interference.
If it was a VP deal I guess she wouldn't really have the leverage for other concessions, since VP to very a old guy in the middle of a pandemic is very valuable.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
Quite. And besides, how many of these lockdowns can these societies take, with people sealed up in their homes whilst their nations receive the economic equivalent of repeated cycles of chemotherapy?
I note from Worldometer the number of serious/ critical Diamond Princess patients has fallen from 32 to 15. With 7 deaths the maximum possible fatality rate there is therefore down to 22/696 or 3.1%.
You are assuming none of the 233 active cases become critical and lead to fatalities. I am not sure that's necessarily a safe assumption.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
Good old Germans. Never said a bad word about them.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
Jesus wept Benpointer...we need to give companies a break.....
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Surely the comparison is to the alternate scenario? It's going to be bad one way or the other. The question is how bad.
In his Reith lectures Sumption gave a very good example of the problem. The first decision that prisoners should have the vote was based upon the premise that Parliament could not have given the matter adequate consideration. Parliament duly did and the near unanimous decision was that prisoners should not have the vote. The second time around the ECt HR decided that such a conclusion was not compatible with the Convention and was therefore wrong as a matter of law. The democratic decision of Parliament was therefore overruled. So far the UK has largely ignored this decision although there has been some movement by the Scottish Parliament.
The view of the ECt HR is that there is an inadequate link between the removal of liberty and the loss of the right to vote. The UK Parliament disagrees and is of the view that a criminal offence sufficiently serious to involve the right to liberty involves the loss of ancillary rights such as the right to vote for the duration of the sentence. You can make an argument either way but the underlying question is whether this is a question of law or democracy. This is the problem with ECHR. It limits democratic choice.
Yes - and the fact that it is intended to do so, in certain circumstances. The problem is that the definition of what those circumstances are has moved on from “not behaving like Nazis” to .... well it’s not entirely clear or at least not universally shared.
Put it another way if Parliament voted to kill every second male child would you say that because this was a democratic vote it should stand. And if not, why not? And on what basis?
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
The ski holiday company isn't selling you the skiing, it's selling you a flight to a hotel from which you can if you want go out and buy the skiing from a third party. So it kinda can still fulfil its part. It's all about frustration of contracts, plus whatever it says in the t and cs.
Edit: it appears the contract was with the resort itself, so this is bollocks and, yes, they can't fob you off with a voucher.
I have just learnt that my aunt, 75, in Livorno developed a fever and a cough yesterday. My cousin told me that she feels “ really quite scared”.
I just feel helpless.
I'm so sorry, Cyclefree. Having friends and family in Italy is particularly stressful at the moment, I sincerely hope for a rapid recovery for your aunt.
I had considered that vanishingly unlikely but I suddenly relaise that Biden picking one of the younger vanquished candidates as Veep would be anointing them and I think the Dems will be allergic to anyone being anointed. They will want the young guns tested in cabinet positions and governorships etc.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
And to a certain extent the USA although that seems more driven by ineptitude than policy.
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
Jesus wept Benpointer...we need to give companies a break.....
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
Let's stop being so fucking selfish...hashtag
It's a view; they wouldn't give you the same benefit if you'd cancelled on them of course.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
And to a certain extent the USA although that seems more driven by ineptitude than policy.
The USA seem to have about as developed plan as ISIS.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I have just learnt that my aunt, 75, in Livorno developed a fever and a cough yesterday. My cousin told me that she feels “ really quite scared”.
I just feel helpless.
Sorry to read that, I hope nothing serious develops.
Sadly, fast forward 4 weeks....change Livorno with Liverpool, and change 75 with 65....and change coming down with a fever to cannot breathe......BUT the answer will be the same...."sorry there is nothing we can do...."
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
And to a certain extent the USA although that seems more driven by ineptitude than policy.
The USA seem to have about as developed plan as ISIS.
They'll be the nominal "no action" case that we can compare the UK's response to.
As I keep saying, we are not talking about the Greatest Generation now.
I have no idea why the behavioural insight team don't think society will be able to follow a Chinese style approach...
I have deep scepticism that even the Chinese government could keep doing lockdowns in the same area and get the same degree of compliance. Also doing Wuhan scale responses in multiple cities at a time is another issue.
I had considered that vanishingly unlikely but I suddenly relaise that Biden picking one of the younger vanquished candidates as Veep would be anointing them and I think the Dems will be allergic to anyone being anointed. They will want the young guns tested in cabinet positions and governorships etc.
Wouldn't it help bring the disenfranchised left back into the Democratic fold. Yeah you might not have Bernie but this is better than abstaining? She is at 22 on Betfair....
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
Jesus wept Benpointer...we need to give companies a break.....
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
Let's stop being so fucking selfish...hashtag
It's a view; they wouldn't give you the same benefit if you'd cancelled on them of course.
No..but I have relied on these businesses to service my needs as I have needed to travel.....
Now is the time to give them something back don't you think?
Or at the least cut them slack....I fucking despise this mentality "you need to get your money back.."
I've lost well over 120 grand this last fortnight...but the big picture seriously is how we get through the Covid 19 relatively intact....
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
The cruise industry - which is now almost completely shutting down - tried the same, offering future credits (enhanced) in place of refunds.
In two months' time, football clubs would ordinarily be asking season ticket holders to renew for next season. If Arsenal try this in spite of what's going on, I won't be renewing.
I have just learnt that my aunt, 75, in Livorno developed a fever and a cough yesterday. My cousin told me that she feels “ really quite scared”.
I just feel helpless.
Sorry to read that, I hope nothing serious develops.
Sadly, fast forward 4 weeks....change Livorno with Liverpool, and change 75 with 65....and change coming down with a fever to cannot breathe......BUT the answer will be the same...."sorry there is nothing we can do...."
Are you thinking that the influx of Madrid fans might turn out to be Liverpool's Philadelphia parade moment?
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
You would think so.
However I suspect we are just going to rebook for the same holiday next year and use the credit.
For our planned transatlantic crossing on QM2 Cunard were earlier today saying we could coulde have a full refund or a 125% credit for a future cruise, if we are over 70 or have an underlying health condition. This seems very fair to me.
I am not sure if they will waive the conditions now Trump has banned us travelling from UK to the US.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
The key is age, and time, because it is the older patients who are highly disproportionately requiring the intensive care.
Put simply, our plan is to lock away all the old folks and to phase everyone else through the epidemic, hopefully spread out in time, such that the burden on the health service from younger healthy patients is manageable.
Yes, it’s risky, but what’s the alternative? Those countries trying complete lockdown will face the challenge of how they let their people out again into a world where the virus is still at large.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
And your alternative is?
Periodic targeted lock downs and encourage behavioural change to keep the rate of transmission under 1 so we can eventually eliminate the disease.
I don't think that having 16 years of events like the ones Italy have now is a viable solution.
As I keep saying, we are not talking about the Greatest Generation now.
I have no idea why the behavioural insight team don't think society will be able to follow a Chinese style approach...
Post of the day. Bravo!
Despite our national myth, we are not the same people as 1939-45.
The west is soft and few in society have had to face a situation where there is a global crisis in which their own government admit the best case scenario is massive numbers of deaths.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
The assumption that undetected cases have the same multiple at Italy’s stage as it does at ours is unwarranted. The actual rate of infection in Italy right now may be hundreds of times the official rate. We don’t know. It is fair to assume, however, that our medical system will be completely overwhelmed within weeks. I am concerned about the apparently modest efforts to boost it.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
And your alternative is?
Periodic targeted lock downs and encourage behavioural change to keep the rate of transmission under 1 so we can eventually eliminate the disease.
I don't think that having 16 years of events like the ones Italy have now is a viable solution.
What is the evidence that this is a better approach than the current strategy?
To state at the start I do not believe we should withdraw from the ECHR. That is not what I am going to comment on.
But Cyclefree's piece is self contradictory.
She asks
"is diversity of legal perspective so unwelcome?"
but then states
"development of human rights law over 70 years has resulted in human rights moving from being defined as restraints on governments to demands on them and, therefore, on other groups of citizens"
and agrees that
"There is some substance in these criticisms, which have often been eloquently made by British lawyers."
Which would surely answer her first question. If the way in which the rulings of the ECHR have developed in the last 70 years are not in line with the UK vision of law and the relationship between the Government and the People then yes, that diversity of legal perspective is unwelcome.
As I said, I don't think this is a serious enough issue for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave the ECHR but it is certainly a major flaw in the system.
In his Reith lectures Sumption gave a very good example of the problem. The first decision that prisoners should have the vote was based upon the premise that Parliament could not have given the matter adequate consideration. Parliament duly did and the near unanimous decision was that prisoners should not have the vote. The second time around the ECt HR decided that such a conclusion was not compatible with the Convention and was therefore wrong as a matter of law. The democratic decision of Parliament was therefore overruled. So far the UK has largely ignored this decision although there has been some movement by the Scottish Parliament.
The view of the ECt HR is that there is an inadequate link between the removal of liberty and the loss of the right to vote. The UK Parliament disagrees and is of the view that a criminal offence sufficiently serious to involve the right to liberty involves the loss of ancillary rights such as the right to vote for the duration of the sentence. You can make an argument either way but the underlying question is whether this is a question of law or democracy. This is the problem with ECHR. It limits democratic choice.
Yes - and the fact that it is intended to do so, in certain circumstances. The problem is that the definition of what those circumstances are has moved on from “not behaving like Nazis” to .... well it’s not entirely clear or at least not universally shared.
Put it another way if Parliament voted to kill every second male child would you say that because this was a democratic vote it should stand. And if not, why not? And on what basis?
The rights originally given by the Convention were basic and uncontroversial. It it the add ons invented by the court since and particularly in the last 20 years that are the problem.
I note from Worldometer the number of serious/ critical Diamond Princess patients has fallen from 32 to 15. With 7 deaths the maximum possible fatality rate there is therefore down to 22/696 or 3.1%.
Pretty damn good considering the age mix. Set against that most of them have received care outside of a warzone environment.
That's the key thing. The fatality rate should be about 1% with a functioning healthcare system. With an overwhelmed system it will be closer to 5%.
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
Jesus wept Benpointer...we need to give companies a break.....
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
Let's stop being so fucking selfish...hashtag
It's a view; they wouldn't give you the same benefit if you'd cancelled on them of course.
I am doing the same with the Airbnb I am supposed to be staying at from Friday.
I was due to be there for 7 weeks but I will certainly be delaying if not cancelling. But I will be letting them know that I will not be seeking a refund (I could get one if I cancel within the next couple of days). They will be losing out for a long time over this I expect so I see no reason to add to their woes after I made a deal.
Whereas everywhere else is banking the virus doesn't come in waves.
It does genuinely seem to come down to most of the world planning on repeatedly snuffing-out outbreaks until treatments or vaccines arrive. An optimisists approach if you like. Versus the UK, and perhaps a couple of other countries, taking a pessimistic approach of controling an outbreak and gaining some degree of immunity for future outbreaks in order to lessen their effects. This approach be chosen on the assumption we can't reapeatedly lockdown everything and rely on a vaccine being developed soon.
You can see why the optimists get such widespread public support, but I don't think there's any reason to assume at this stage that anybody knows the right thing to do.
I am not sure the UK is quite as isolated in this decision as being made out, it is simply the UK government have been totally honest what it means e.g. Merkel talked about 70% of people getting it...that clearly isn't compatible with a strategy to hide for 3 months and think it will have gone away.
Germany and Iceland are the ones publicly following the same route.
And to a certain extent the USA although that seems more driven by ineptitude than policy.
The USA seem to have about as developed plan as ISIS.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
Let's have this conversation in a month...then we'll be able to compare our health systems....
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
Let's have this conversation in a month...then we'll be able to compare our health systems....
We will have no idea about which was a better course of action for years.
In his Reith lectures Sumption gave a very good example of the problem. The first decision that prisoners should have the vote was based upon the premise that Parliament could not have given the matter adequate consideration. Parliament duly did and the near unanimous decision was that prisoners should not have the vote. The second time around the ECt HR decided that such a conclusion was not compatible with the Convention and was therefore wrong as a matter of law. The democratic decision of Parliament was therefore overruled. So far the UK has largely ignored this decision although there has been some movement by the Scottish Parliament.
The view of the ECt HR is that there is an inadequate link between the removal of liberty and the loss of the right to vote. The UK Parliament disagrees and is of the view that a criminal offence sufficiently serious to involve the right to liberty involves the loss of ancillary rights such as the right to vote for the duration of the sentence. You can make an argument either way but the underlying question is whether this is a question of law or democracy. This is the problem with ECHR. It limits democratic choice.
Yes - and the fact that it is intended to do so, in certain circumstances. The problem is that the definition of what those circumstances are has moved on from “not behaving like Nazis” to .... well it’s not entirely clear or at least not universally shared.
Put it another way if Parliament voted to kill every second male child would you say that because this was a democratic vote it should stand. And if not, why not? And on what basis?
The rights originally given by the Convention were basic and uncontroversial. It it the add ons invented by the court since and particularly in the last 20 years that are the problem.
Indeed. And its not as if the Convention is working in the 21st Century anyway.
Or does anyone seriously think ECHR members Russia and Turkey have fantastic human rights? Is that the threshold we want to hold ourselves to?
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
Let's have this conversation in a month...then we'll be able to compare our health systems....
No need. The demand in both countries for ICU beds will be tens of times greater than the actual number.
The Queen has quit Buckingham Palace over coronavirus fears after Corbra crisis talks, it has been reported. Her Majesty, 93, has been taken to Windsor Castle with plans in place to quarantine her and Prince Philip, 98, at Sandringham if the outbreak worsens.
I am surprised they didn't take them somewhere smaller and further away from population.
The ECHR has overreached itself though hasn't it. I didn't like Labour's pledge to nationalise energy companies but that would have brought themselves up against Protocol One Article One, the right to property. And why can't we make a democratic decision about the death penalty? It's overreach.
ECHR was brought in because of the Holocaust and the overreach pisses people off, I'm sure of it.
The Queen has quit Buckingham Palace over coronavirus fears after Corbra crisis talks, it has been reported. Her Majesty, 93, has been taken to Windsor Castle with plans in place to quarantine her and Prince Philip, 98, at Sandringham if the outbreak worsens.
I am surprised they didn't take them somewhere smaller and further away from population.
Sandringham, or Balmoral, for example.
I also hope the weekly meetings with Boris are conducted via Skype. The last thing we need now is a demise of the crown.
All French ski resorts have just been closed. Not a surprise.
A full refund will be given in the form of a credit against a holiday next year.
Surely they have to give you your money back (not a credit) if they can't fulfill their part of the contract?
Jesus wept Benpointer...we need to give companies a break.....
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
Let's stop being so fucking selfish...hashtag
It's a view; they wouldn't give you the same benefit if you'd cancelled on them of course.
I am doing the same with the Airbnb I am supposed to be staying at from Friday.
I was due to be there for 7 weeks but I will certainly be delaying if not cancelling. But I will be letting them know that I will not be seeking a refund (I could get one if I cancel within the next couple of days). They will be losing out for a long time over this I expect so I see no reason to add to their woes after I made a deal.
Great stuff....this is exactly the type of attitude that we need to pull us through this crisis...we just need to become incredibly empathic and start to think how our decisions impact on others.....
I had considered that vanishingly unlikely but I suddenly relaise that Biden picking one of the younger vanquished candidates as Veep would be anointing them and I think the Dems will be allergic to anyone being anointed. They will want the young guns tested in cabinet positions and governorships etc.
Who's going to stop him? Biden will pick whoever he thinks will help him win (or whoever he's already cut a deal with), his delegates will vote for that person.
The Queen has quit Buckingham Palace over coronavirus fears after Corbra crisis talks, it has been reported. Her Majesty, 93, has been taken to Windsor Castle with plans in place to quarantine her and Prince Philip, 98, at Sandringham if the outbreak worsens.
I am surprised they didn't take them somewhere smaller and further away from population.
Sandringham, or Balmoral, for example.
I also hope the weekly meetings with Boris are conducted via Skype. The last thing we need now is a demise of the crown.
Liz will probably be quite happy to give them a miss.
No, but he is saying "herd immunity" as an aim is not the case, it's an outcome which they think is inevitable. And I'm inclined to agree, I tried putting up a sign saying "No Coronavirus" but Lothians still has the most cases in Scotland.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
You neglect "who" is getting infected. In China, among those severe enough to develop bad symptoms 0.2% of U20s developed into critical cases. It was about double that for people in their 20s and 30s. Given that these are only the cases severe enough for hospitalisation the evidence is that 40 and under could get the virus, with relatively tiny impacts on the healthcare system.
Lock away your old and vulnerable, and offer every U40 in the country two litres of spirit and £1000 to go to a music festival and you'd get a decent proportion of the population to have immunity soon enough.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
We have 1000 confirmed our CMO thinks we have 10,000. I think that might be the answer.
No, but he is pointing out that people are filling in the substantial gaps in the government's communicated plan themselves and coming to the wrong conclusion.
People are talking about the government's plan as if it is all over by Christmas. The numbers say this isn't possible. The government's plan goes well, we'll into 2021
Paradoxically if the number of cases is much higher than stated it means the death rate is much lower than thought, assuming the number of fatalities is correct.
Paradoxically if the number of cases is much higher than stated it means the death rate is much lower than thought, assuming the number of fatalities is correct.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
Well you claimed having more beds was too expensive a minute ago make your mind up.
Paradoxically if the number of cases is much higher than stated it means the death rate is much lower than thought, assuming the number of fatalities is correct.
We know with this disease is at the moment what can hugely affect the rate is if your system gets overloaded and crashes. South Korea and Japan haven't (as of yet) and thus have much lower death rates.
No, but he is pointing out that people are filling in the substantial gaps in the government's communicated plan themselves and coming to the wrong conclusion.
People are talking about the government's plan as if it is all over by Christmas. The numbers say this isn't possible. The government's plan goes well, we'll into 2021
I think people feel, instinctively, and wrongly, that if we all stay in our homes for two months, the 'thing' will die out.
It wont. Only one person is needed to start it all again.
The Queen has quit Buckingham Palace over coronavirus fears after Corbra crisis talks, it has been reported. Her Majesty, 93, has been taken to Windsor Castle with plans in place to quarantine her and Prince Philip, 98, at Sandringham if the outbreak worsens.
I am surprised they didn't take them somewhere smaller and further away from population.
Sandringham, or Balmoral, for example.
I also hope the weekly meetings with Boris are conducted via Skype. The last thing we need now is a demise of the crown.
Frankly you'd have thought that the Queen and the Prince of Wales would both be told to go off to the countryside for the duration (and to different locations of course, presumably HM to Sandringham and HRH to Highgrove.)
As you say, audiences with Boris can be substituted for video conferencing. Any residual requirement for royal morale-boosting/hand-waving duties can be delegated to the Cambridges.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
You neglect "who" is getting infected. In China, among those severe enough to develop bad symptoms 0.2% of U20s developed into critical cases. It was about double that for people in their 20s and 30s. Given that these are only the cases severe enough for hospitalisation the evidence is that 40 and under could get the virus, with relatively tiny impacts on the healthcare system.
Lock away your old and vulnerable, and offer every U40 in the country two litres of spirit and £1000 to go to a music festival and you'd get a decent proportion of the population to have immunity soon enough.
Not so. If 20m under 40s get infected and 0.2% require hospitalisation and ICU that is 40k patients. That is not a tiny impact.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
Well you claimed having more beds was too expensive a minute ago make your mind up.
Having them when you don't need them is expensive. And they would have gone unused decades if we had enough to deal with the current outbreak. I would have thought you would have been against waste in the NHS?
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
We have 1000 confirmed our CMO thinks we have 10,000. I think that might be the answer.
He thought we had 10,000 when we had less than 500 confirmed 2 days ago.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
We have 1000 confirmed our CMO thinks we have 10,000. I think that might be the answer.
He thought we had 10,000 when we had less than 500 confirmed 2 days ago.
He sees the data before us....and this big leap is driven in part by a massive expansion in the number of tests conducted in the past 2 days. It is apples and oranges to compare the 500 from upto 2 days ago with the new increase.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
We have 1000 confirmed our CMO thinks we have 10,000. I think that might be the answer.
He thought we had 10,000 when we had less than 500 confirmed 2 days ago.
It will be a very educated estimate.
They'll have a lot of information via contact tracing and knowing how reliable it is.
Paradoxically if the number of cases is much higher than stated it means the death rate is much lower than thought, assuming the number of fatalities is correct.
That's technically true but not very interesting, because in the UK the number of infected is rising from almost nothing very fast, so people haven't yet had time to die from it.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
What is the point of this?
It is the equivalent of the old irish joke about 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Who the f cares whether successive governments have not provided enough ICU beds for a pandemic?
Clearly they probably haven't. So now what do we do?
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
Well you claimed having more beds was too expensive a minute ago make your mind up.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
Well you claimed having more beds was too expensive a minute ago make your mind up.
Umm. Fair point.
Is it? You would argue we should have kept tens of thousands of ICU beds on standby just in case for the past 50 years? What a monumental waste of money that would have been for the NHS.
If Italy has 21,157 confirmed cases which is managing to overwhelm their health system, then how would the British plan to have 60-80% infected work without doing the same many times over.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
Italy does not have enough critical care beds.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Here's a newsflash for you. No country has enough ICU beds. If they had enough ICU beds, they'd have been wasting a staggering amount of money on them for the past hundred years.
We have the least in Western Europe but we can wash our hands and carry on praising the cutting of a 1/3 of Acute beds since 2010.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
At this point I doubt the price of things is a concern for the government.
Well you claimed having more beds was too expensive a minute ago make your mind up.
Having them when you don't need them is expensive. And they would have gone unused decades if we had enough to deal with the current outbreak. I would have thought you would have been against waste in the NHS?
2.4m per bed as opposed to 48000 per bed though. The private sector ripping off the taxpayer by a multiple of 50 is obscene
I expect as a capitalist you approve of supply and demand and super profit though.
Comments
Meanwhile plenty of other developed nations like Canada, Australia and New Zealand and not members of the ECHR.
Do you believe Cyclefree that human rights are better in Turkey and Russia or in Australia and Canada?
The view of the ECt HR is that there is an inadequate link between the removal of liberty and the loss of the right to vote. The UK Parliament disagrees and is of the view that a criminal offence sufficiently serious to involve the right to liberty involves the loss of ancillary rights such as the right to vote for the duration of the sentence. You can make an argument either way but the underlying question is whether this is a question of law or democracy. This is the problem with ECHR. It limits democratic choice.
Sadly, I think that a great many of us are going to be put through similar experiences before this is done.
I hate myself a bit for looking at her twitter feed, but when you look at the number of likes and retweets she gets, you have to remember that she's a conduit of "information" for very many people, including lots of other journalists or media commentators. If you want to see where Teh Stupid is coming from, it's often a good idea to look at source.
If it was a VP deal I guess she wouldn't really have the leverage for other concessions, since VP to very a old guy in the middle of a pandemic is very valuable.
As I keep saying, we are not talking about the Greatest Generation now.
That is 39-52 million people getting the virus.
Even if the Italian cases are in reality 10 times more, so 210,000, we are still planing on have 185-247 times as many people infected overall in comparison to Italy right now.
Italy has been swamped for weeks on those lower numbers, so if as planned we have people getting infected at an even slower than them as they did it too fast (let's say a month for 210,000 people instead of 3 weeks), then the whole operation would take about about 200 months, which is about 16 years.
I don't really see how this is plausible.
I had an air trip and car hire in Italy early April...I'm not claiming back....these are businesses that employ people who have mortgages....times have changed
Let's stop being so fucking selfish...hashtag
Put it another way if Parliament voted to kill every second male child would you say that because this was a democratic vote it should stand. And if not, why not? And on what basis?
Edit: it appears the contract was with the resort itself, so this is bollocks and, yes, they can't fob you off with a voucher.
However I suspect we are just going to rebook for the same holiday next year and use the credit.
Despite our national myth, we are not the same people as 1939-45.
Sadly, fast forward 4 weeks....change Livorno with Liverpool, and change 75 with 65....and change coming down with a fever to cannot breathe......BUT the answer will be the same...."sorry there is nothing we can do...."
I fear we are going to see many such posts on PB.
Now is the time to give them something back don't you think?
Or at the least cut them slack....I fucking despise this mentality "you need to get your money back.."
I've lost well over 120 grand this last fortnight...but the big picture seriously is how we get through the Covid 19 relatively intact....
I am not sure if they will waive the conditions now Trump has banned us travelling from UK to the US.
It has more than twice as many as us 12.8 per 100,000 compared to our 6.3 per 100,000.
Put simply, our plan is to lock away all the old folks and to phase everyone else through the epidemic, hopefully spread out in time, such that the burden on the health service from younger healthy patients is manageable.
Yes, it’s risky, but what’s the alternative? Those countries trying complete lockdown will face the challenge of how they let their people out again into a world where the virus is still at large.
I don't think that having 16 years of events like the ones Italy have now is a viable solution.
But Cyclefree's piece is self contradictory.
She asks
"is diversity of legal perspective so unwelcome?"
but then states
"development of human rights law over 70 years has resulted in human rights moving from being defined as restraints on governments to demands on them and, therefore, on other groups of citizens"
and agrees that
"There is some substance in these criticisms, which have often been eloquently made by British lawyers."
Which would surely answer her first question. If the way in which the rulings of the ECHR have developed in the last 70 years are not in line with the UK vision of law and the relationship between the Government and the People then yes, that diversity of legal perspective is unwelcome.
As I said, I don't think this is a serious enough issue for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave the ECHR but it is certainly a major flaw in the system.
I was due to be there for 7 weeks but I will certainly be delaying if not cancelling. But I will be letting them know that I will not be seeking a refund (I could get one if I cancel within the next couple of days). They will be losing out for a long time over this I expect so I see no reason to add to their woes after I made a deal.
Or does anyone seriously think ECHR members Russia and Turkey have fantastic human rights? Is that the threshold we want to hold ourselves to?
https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1238821528940281858?s=20
I am surprised they didn't take them somewhere smaller and further away from population.
ECHR was brought in because of the Holocaust and the overreach pisses people off, I'm sure of it.
I also hope the weekly meetings with Boris are conducted via Skype. The last thing we need now is a demise of the crown.
How cheap do you think panic buying private sector beds at over 50 times the going rate for an Acute bed is?
Lock away your old and vulnerable, and offer every U40 in the country two litres of spirit and £1000 to go to a music festival and you'd get a decent proportion of the population to have immunity soon enough.
People are talking about the government's plan as if it is all over by Christmas. The numbers say this isn't possible. The government's plan goes well, we'll into 2021
It wont. Only one person is needed to start it all again.
As you say, audiences with Boris can be substituted for video conferencing. Any residual requirement for royal morale-boosting/hand-waving duties can be delegated to the Cambridges.
They'll have a lot of information via contact tracing and knowing how reliable it is.
It is the equivalent of the old irish joke about 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Who the f cares whether successive governments have not provided enough ICU beds for a pandemic?
Clearly they probably haven't. So now what do we do?
Shit is now very real for me
These really are frightening times. I put my trust in the experts, but the fear remains.
I expect as a capitalist you approve of supply and demand and super profit though.