Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere.
I also get the impression that half of British Twitter in 1942 would have been supporting the Nazis, and the BBC would have made sure their view was represented on the news every night.
The virus can’t read. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties the government faces with this challenge but self-evidently there are other courses of action. They can and should be aired.
If the government starts from a position of lacking credibility with a lot of the public, its supporters might usefully reflect that is a product of its extreme majoritarianism.
The problem the government has is this. I reckon most of the public aren't worried by this. My dad certainly isn't, though he has just said that the government should bring in ration cards.
What is giving the impression that a lot of the public are concerned is that a lot of the twitterati and the media are piling in on the government.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
There is polling on this. The government has the support of at least a plurality for its handling of this. A substantial minority, however, do not support it.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
Japan has just passed a law giving the government a lot more power to deal with contagious diseases. These powers kick in when the PM declares an emergency, which he declined to do so far. They were a bit controversial but ultimately rather than forcing them through with its majority (which it could have done) it got the support of the main opposition party by building in various checks and balances that they asked for.
Off the record, and therefore deniable, briefings relating to COVID-19 to selected journalists are a very bad look. Journalists with any integrity would refuse to report them. There is a duty right now to avoid any ambiguities. Confusion can quite literally be a killer. It’s time for all to be grown-up.
Yes, I think it's time for the government to have a much better approach to communicating everything with the public. One source of truth, whether that's the PM, Matt Hancock or some other spokesperson. All information should also be on an official website for the public to access easily rather than having to find out in some newspaper or via BBC news.
Exactly this. We need to trust the information being provided. For that to happen it needs to come from a named source. This is not a political game. New rules are required.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
Japan has just passed a law giving the government a lot more power to deal with contagious diseases. These powers kick in when the PM declares an emergency, which he declined to do so far. They were a bit controversial but ultimately rather than forcing them through with its majority (which it could have done) it got the support of the main opposition party by building in various checks and balances that they asked for.
Thanks. My dad said that there is a danger that the government might bring in some laws that never go away once the crisis has passed. Something to watch out for.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
Japan has just passed a law giving the government a lot more power to deal with contagious diseases. These powers kick in when the PM declares an emergency, which he declined to do so far. They were a bit controversial but ultimately rather than forcing them through with its majority (which it could have done) it got the support of the main opposition party by building in various checks and balances that they asked for.
Thanks. My dad said that there is a danger that the government might bring in some laws that never go away once the crisis has passed. Something to watch out for.
Yes, any new laws passed should have a sunset clause which requires a two thirds majority to extend.
Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere.
I also get the impression that half of British Twitter in 1942 would have been supporting the Nazis, and the BBC would have made sure their view was represented on the news every night.
The virus can’t read. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties the government faces with this challenge but self-evidently there are other courses of action. They can and should be aired.
If the government starts from a position of lacking credibility with a lot of the public, its supporters might usefully reflect that is a product of its extreme majoritarianism.
The problem the government has is this. I reckon most of the public aren't worried by this. My dad certainly isn't, though he has just said that the government should bring in ration cards.
What is giving the impression that a lot of the public are concerned is that a lot of the twitterati and the media are piling in on the government.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
There is polling on this. The government has the support of at least a plurality for its handling of this. A substantial minority, however, do not support it.
The views of that substantial minority should be heard.
You assume that all of those opposed to the government's handling want the same response.
No I don’t. Nor are the Twitterati particularly consistent.
The government has spent so long trying to steamroller its views on a hostile opposition without any compromise that now that it needs consensus it has no ability to draw on a sense that it is looking after the wider good among its opponents. This problem is very much its own creation, especially when it wants to take an internationally unusual approach.
Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere.
I also get the impression that half of British Twitter in 1942 would have been supporting the Nazis, and the BBC would have made sure their view was represented on the news every night.
The virus can’t read. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties the government faces with this challenge but self-evidently there are other courses of action. They can and should be aired.
If the government starts from a position of lacking credibility with a lot of the public, its supporters might usefully reflect that is a product of its extreme majoritarianism.
The problem the government has is this. I reckon most of the public aren't worried by this. My dad certainly isn't, though he has just said that the government should bring in ration cards.
What is giving the impression that a lot of the public are concerned is that a lot of the twitterati and the media are piling in on the government.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
There is polling on this. The government has the support of at least a plurality for its handling of this. A substantial minority, however, do not support it.
The views of that substantial minority should be heard.
You assume that all of those opposed to the government's handling want the same response.
No I don’t. Nor are the Twitterati particularly consistent.
The government has spent so long trying to steamroller its views on a hostile opposition without any compromise that now that it needs consensus it has no ability to draw on a sense that it is looking after the wider good among its opponents. This problem is very much its own creation, especially when it wants to take an internationally unusual approach.
And what is the response to those who don't like what the government is doing? Are all these people barricading themselevs in? I guess that might be what the panic buying is all about. But my guess is most of those people are carrying on as normal.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
Japan has just passed a law giving the government a lot more power to deal with contagious diseases. These powers kick in when the PM declares an emergency, which he declined to do so far. They were a bit controversial but ultimately rather than forcing them through with its majority (which it could have done) it got the support of the main opposition party by building in various checks and balances that they asked for.
Thanks. My dad said that there is a danger that the government might bring in some laws that never go away once the crisis has passed. Something to watch out for.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere.
I also get the impression that half of British Twitter in 1942 would have been supporting the Nazis, and the BBC would have made sure their view was represented on the news every night.
The virus can’t read. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties the government faces with this challenge but self-evidently there are other courses of action. They can and should be aired.
If the government starts from a position of lacking credibility with a lot of the public, its supporters might usefully reflect that is a product of its extreme majoritarianism.
The problem the government has is this. I reckon most of the public aren't worried by this. My dad certainly isn't, though he has just said that the government should bring in ration cards.
What is giving the impression that a lot of the public are concerned is that a lot of the twitterati and the media are piling in on the government.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
There is polling on this. The government has the support of at least a plurality for its handling of this. A substantial minority, however, do not support it.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
@edmundintokyo - are you concerned that the Japanese are still planning on holding the Olympics?
Well, it seems like a dumb idea but I guess the normal travel ban and quarantine stuff will still apply, and if they need to do stuff without spectators I guess they will, so I don't like it but it doesn't terrify me.
Also it's a big lost opportunity not to have a gold medal for handwashing.
What concerns me a little bit is the talk that legislation is needed to put in place some of the more extreme measures. Has that happened elsewhere in the world? Or is democracy at times of crisis another example of British exceptionalism?
Japan has just passed a law giving the government a lot more power to deal with contagious diseases. These powers kick in when the PM declares an emergency, which he declined to do so far. They were a bit controversial but ultimately rather than forcing them through with its majority (which it could have done) it got the support of the main opposition party by building in various checks and balances that they asked for.
Thanks. My dad said that there is a danger that the government might bring in some laws that never go away once the crisis has passed. Something to watch out for.
That's definitely a risk, and more broadly if it seems like the authoritarian states are keeping people safe while democracies are killing them that obviously strengthens authoritarianism everywhere and weakens democracy.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
@edmundintokyo - are you concerned that the Japanese are still planning on holding the Olympics?
Well, it seems like a dumb idea but I guess the normal travel ban and quarantine stuff will still apply, and if they need to do stuff without spectators I guess they will, so I don't like it but it doesn't terrify me.
Also it's a big lost opportunity not to have a gold medal for handwashing.
I see the J League is postponed at the moment. In my opinion that's one of the key criteria for "how bad is this?"
I cannot believe that Japan will want the Olympics to go ahead without spectators. Surely better to delay until you can make back some of the money spent on the event.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
Hmmm - lots of 52/48 votes on issues like who can vote, imprisonment without trial, the right to hold property, etc, etc, etc. Sounds fantastic and in no way divisive!!
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
Hmmm - lots of 52/48 votes on issues like who can vote, imprisonment without trial, the right to hold property, etc, etc, etc. Sounds fantastic and in no way divisive!!
The obvious one is capital punishment - say people voted 52:48 in favour of having it - then I'd imagine it would be on the books but never actually used (though, of course, there would be media clamour for it to be used for the most heinous crimes).
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
Summary execution without trial of child murderers ("Did their victims get a fair trial? So why should they?") There are reasons why direct democracy is a terrible idea.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
Yes, I am sure you could pull apart the simplistic nature of the simulations, but the presentation is excellent. Particularly impressive that they are actual simulations, run afresh for each reader, and not a pre-recorded video.
In the fourth one, you can actually see herd immunity working.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
It depends, surely, on why society/the government decided they should be there. And what is done with while they are there. It might be 'reasonable' to determine that if someone is imprisoned for some socially agreed offence ...... theft for example ...... and no reasonable attempt is made to rehabilitate them, that that is against their human rights.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
No, I don't like that they think they have a right to determine whether prisoners' should get the vote. In no way shape or form is that a human right.
Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere.
I also get the impression that half of British Twitter in 1942 would have been supporting the Nazis, and the BBC would have made sure their view was represented on the news every night.
"Jeez, some people are totally losing their minds, both here and elsewhere." The Middle East?
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
No, I don't like that they think they have a right to determine whether prisoners' should get the vote. In no way shape or form is that a human right.
You don’t think the right to vote is a human right?
I’m not sure how true it is but apparently British tourists in Benidorm are buying booze from the supermarket and the sitting on the terraces of closed bars to drink it. If true I’m not surprised but saddened at how thick some people are.
Wise words, but he clearly doesn't know the ending of "The Perfect Storm"
Because by over-reacting and distorting our priorities, we can do harm to the thousands of people already dependent on the health service, those whose chances of survival would be compromised or destroyed if their treatment were to be disrupted. This is why I support the steady approach taken by our Government so far.
Some suggest we should have taken drastic action early on – that schools should be closed, that borders should be shut, that we should all be confined indoors. But after a lifetime in medicine, I’ve seen many crises come and go and I know that wrong-headed intervention can cause as much damage as the problems it is supposed to cure.
Let me be blunt: if we rush to ‘act’ for the sake of being seen to act, we are certain to condemn vulnerable people to a premature death.
This is not to underestimate the gravity of the situation.
While for most people, this will be a minor illness – no worse than a bad cold – there will be many others for whom it is serious.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
It depends, surely, on why society/the government decided they should be there. And what is done with while they are there. It might be 'reasonable' to determine that if someone is imprisoned for some socially agreed offence ...... theft for example ...... and no reasonable attempt is made to rehabilitate them, that that is against their human rights.
Locking people up seems are far bigger infringement on someone's life that not letting them vote. The reason, of course, that the ECHR wouldn't ban imprisonment, even if they thought it logically inconsistent with universal human rights, is that the people wouldn't stand for it.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
No, I don't like that they think they have a right to determine whether prisoners' should get the vote. In no way shape or form is that a human right.
You don’t think the right to vote is a human right?
No more than the right to not be locked up in the first place.
Australia's prime minister has ordered a 14-day self-isolation for anyone arriving in the country to try to halt the spread of the coronavirus. "This is very important," Scott Morrison said at a briefing, adding that the measure would take effect from midnight on Sunday (13:00 GMT).
Yes, I am sure you could pull apart the simplistic nature of the simulations, but the presentation is excellent. Particularly impressive that they are actual simulations, run afresh for each reader, and not a pre-recorded video.
In the fourth one, you can actually see herd immunity working.
As it points out, though, you don’t see anyone dying.
I’m not sure how true it is but apparently British tourists in Benidorm are buying booze from the supermarket and the sitting on the terraces of closed bars to drink it. If true I’m not surprised but saddened at how thick some people are.
We had the case study of British tourists in the Tenerife hotel about 4 weeks ago now. Needless to say it filled me with dread.
When this is over, politics is going to swing to the left, isn’t it? The value of good government and social cohesion will have been underlined, and voters will be looking for a message of hope and change.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
No, I don't like that they think they have a right to determine whether prisoners' should get the vote. In no way shape or form is that a human right.
You don’t think the right to vote is a human right?
No more than the right to not be locked up in the first place.
You have a right to a fair trial. You don’t have the right not to be punished for a crime that after that fair trial you have been convicted for. Imprisonment remains a universally accepted proportionate punishment for serious crimes.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
Standard government softening up/testing the water media strategy, as patented by a certain Mr A Blair in the 1990s
That's how I read it too - "rolling the pitch" so when the actual announcement is made its immediate impact is reduced, and if its less draconian than leaked people go "whew" and it passes more easily...
Houston, we have a communications problem.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402 Prof van Schaik noted that the UK is the only country in Europe that is following what he described as its "laissez-faire attitude to the virus". But a Department of Health and Social care spokesperson said that Sir Patrick's comments had been misinterpreted. "Herd immunity is not part of our action plan, but is a natural by-product of an epidemic. Our aims are to save lives, protect the most vulnerable, and relieve pressure on our NHS," he said. "We have now moved out of the contain phase and into delay, and we have experts working round the clock. Every measure that we have or will introduce will be based on the best scientific evidence. "Our awareness of the likely levels of immunity in the country over the coming months will ensure our planning and response is as accurate and effective as possible."
Which might come as news to those staunchly defending the herd immunity strategy over the last couple of days...
Could those who were explaining to us with such certainty over the last couple of days the herd immunity strategy explain what it is now ?
As a couple of people said below, it sounds as though the big press conference was actually a bit more of a placeholder than a definitive declaration.
The government is to publish the models we were told on here we didn’t need to see.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51893736 It follows strong criticism of the government's strategy from more than 200 scientists, who have written to ministers urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19. The total number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK has reached 1,140, while 37,746 people have been tested. Downing Street said its "next planned interventions" will come into force soon, and that it will publish models and data it has used during its decision-making process. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that government, local authorities, charities, friends and neighbours "will need to be part of the national effort to support the shielded". He also said the British public had "never been tested like this" since the Second World War and issued a "call to arms" to manufacturers, asking them to "transform their production lines" to make ventilators. "Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices, to protect themselves and others, especially those most vulnerable to this disease," he said.
Yes, I am sure you could pull apart the simplistic nature of the simulations, but the presentation is excellent. Particularly impressive that they are actual simulations, run afresh for each reader, and not a pre-recorded video.
In the fourth one, you can actually see herd immunity working.
The level of "herd immunity" against an infectious disease is mathematically related to the reciprocal of the R0, where R0 is the number of new infections per infected case, in a susceptible population. This doesn't mean the disease is eliminated, but does mean that outbreaks fizzle out quickly.
So a highly infectious disease (eg measles) with an R0 of 10 requires in the region of 90% immunity for "herd immunity". A less infectious disease with an R0 of 2 requires a circa 50% immunity for "herd immunity" to work.
The Coronavirus has an R0 of about 2.5 at present, so a 60% level of infection is required for that "herd immunity" to be effective. That works out at about 40 million Britons needing to catch it.
The China/ROK/Hong Kong/Japan approach is to reduce the R0 below 1 as soon as possible, which causes the infection to fizzle out without "herd immunity". If this is in effective at eliminating the disease, that is great, but if it is not then the level of infections needed for "herd immunity" is significantly reduced. The two approaches are not contradictory.
We know COVID19 has a significant latent period of a couple of weeks before any particular individual reaches crisis point, so any attempt at titrating measures by numbers of severely ill will always be 2 weeks behind when they were really needed. I also think that the idea that this is controllable like a tap being turned is delusional.
The fundamental challenge is that the ECHR is staffed by judges from (in the main) very different legal traditions who have developed a taste for judicial activism.
In this country we - rightly in my view - take the view that judicial activism is not a good thing.
The law is, and should be, what Parliament says it is. Judges should base their decisions on the law and on precedent. Not on political objectives or philosophies.
You have a right to a fair trial. You don’t have the right not to be punished for a crime that after that fair trial you have been convicted for. Imprisonment remains a universally accepted proportionate punishment for serious crimes.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
I think it's rather endearing that PB's response to the current crisis is to ponder eligiblity to vote. But sice it's been raised, I agree with Alastair. People go to prison for a wide variety of crimes. It may be that none, some or all of them are serious enough to remove the right to vote. If so, the law on those crimes should be changed so that losing the vote is added to the specified punishment. But we shouldn't add it on as an extra punishment imposed by administrative fiat that isn't actually in the legislation. That, as I understand it, is the ECHR ruling.
People want to deny prisoners the vote? I disagree, but OK. Pass a law saying so so it applies henceforth (I don't think one should introduce retrospectivce punishment - a bad precedent).
Standard government softening up/testing the water media strategy, as patented by a certain Mr A Blair in the 1990s
That's how I read it too - "rolling the pitch" so when the actual announcement is made its immediate impact is reduced, and if its less draconian than leaked people go "whew" and it passes more easily...
With a touch of 1984 newspeak with mobilisation used to describe the forced restriction of mobility.
Houston, we have a communications problem.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402 Prof van Schaik noted that the UK is the only country in Europe that is following what he described as its "laissez-faire attitude to the virus". But a Department of Health and Social care spokesperson said that Sir Patrick's comments had been misinterpreted. "Herd immunity is not part of our action plan, but is a natural by-product of an epidemic. Our aims are to save lives, protect the most vulnerable, and relieve pressure on our NHS," he said. "We have now moved out of the contain phase and into delay, and we have experts working round the clock. Every measure that we have or will introduce will be based on the best scientific evidence. "Our awareness of the likely levels of immunity in the country over the coming months will ensure our planning and response is as accurate and effective as possible."
Which might come as news to those staunchly defending the herd immunity strategy over the last couple of days...
Could those who were explaining to us with such certainty over the last couple of days the herd immunity strategy explain what it is now ?
As a couple of people said below, it sounds as though the big press conference was actually a bit more of a placeholder than a definitive declaration.
The government is to publish the models we were told on here we didn’t need to see.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51893736 It follows strong criticism of the government's strategy from more than 200 scientists, who have written to ministers urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19. The total number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK has reached 1,140, while 37,746 people have been tested. Downing Street said its "next planned interventions" will come into force soon, and that it will publish models and data it has used during its decision-making process. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that government, local authorities, charities, friends and neighbours "will need to be part of the national effort to support the shielded". He also said the British public had "never been tested like this" since the Second World War and issued a "call to arms" to manufacturers, asking them to "transform their production lines" to make ventilators. "Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices, to protect themselves and others, especially those most vulnerable to this disease," he said.
It is an extremely unpopular PR branding but ultimately the end point is most of us are going to get this.
Smooth the curve is the same as herd immunity.
Stop the curve is the different policy in this pandemic.
Pay airlines to use grounded planes and empty airports as Covid 19 triage/isolation centres. Aircrews are good at looking after people, planes have beds. AIrports can move large numbers of people around securely. Lots of catering capacity. Oxygen is on tap.
You have a right to a fair trial. You don’t have the right not to be punished for a crime that after that fair trial you have been convicted for. Imprisonment remains a universally accepted proportionate punishment for serious crimes.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
The solution, of course, is to give the judge the power to strip the franchise from somebody sentenced to more than five years. Then, amend the guidelines so they do it unless there is compelling reason not to. Ample precedents for that (e.g. conscientious objectors losing the vote for five years in 1918).
Pay airlines to use grounded planes and empty airports as Covid 19 triage/isolation centres. Aircrews are good at looking after people, planes have beds. AI reports can move large numbers of people around securely. Lots of catering capacity
I’m up for that if I can guarantee a first class seat ;-)
That's a thoughtful header, but the problem is Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes.
A legislature might take a very different view about what constitutes a violation of human rights to the European Court of Human Rights. And, that legislature might be correct. How do you avoid the kind of situation you have in the US, where the Supreme Court has become a very partisan organisation?
You have a right to a fair trial. You don’t have the right not to be punished for a crime that after that fair trial you have been convicted for. Imprisonment remains a universally accepted proportionate punishment for serious crimes.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
I think it's rather endearing that PB's response to the current crisis is to ponder eligiblity to vote. But sice it's been raised, I agree with Alastair. People go to prison for a wide variety of crimes. It may be that none, some or all of them are serious enough to remove the right to vote. If so, the law on those crimes should be changed so that losing the vote is added to the specified punishment. But we shouldn't add it on as an extra punishment imposed by administrative fiat that isn't actually in the legislation. That, as I understand it, is the ECHR ruling.
People want to deny prisoners the vote? I disagree, but OK. Pass a law saying so so it applies henceforth (I don't think one should introduce retrospectivce punishment - a bad precedent).
Agreed. Though the ‘just pass a law’ approach on its own leads to situations, as in the US, where felons are still denied the right after their release.
And when government passes a law saying it’s OK to torture in some circumstances ?
It is worth adding that we are not certain that all are susceptible. The level of "herd immunity" needed for STD control applies only to sexually active people for example, relevant to PREP for HIV for example. We dont yet know why some people are resistant to COVID19, or what percentage of the population they are.
A further point is that by stopping community testing we neither know the R0 nor the level of "herd immunity" directly, though there are some indirect measures such as numbers hospitalised etc.
You have a right to a fair trial. You don’t have the right not to be punished for a crime that after that fair trial you have been convicted for. Imprisonment remains a universally accepted proportionate punishment for serious crimes.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
I think it's rather endearing that PB's response to the current crisis is to ponder eligiblity to vote. But sice it's been raised, I agree with Alastair. People go to prison for a wide variety of crimes. It may be that none, some or all of them are serious enough to remove the right to vote. If so, the law on those crimes should be changed so that losing the vote is added to the specified punishment. But we shouldn't add it on as an extra punishment imposed by administrative fiat that isn't actually in the legislation. That, as I understand it, is the ECHR ruling.
People want to deny prisoners the vote? I disagree, but OK. Pass a law saying so so it applies henceforth (I don't think one should introduce retrospectivce punishment - a bad precedent).
Agreed. Though the ‘just pass a law’ approach on its own leads to situations, as in the US, where felons are still denied the right after their release.
And when government passes a law saying it’s OK to torture in some circumstances ?
If we really are on a war footing, the other thing that needs to end is the invisible PM.
There should be daily press conferences, on the BBC.
Selectively briefing a few pet journalists who then 'debate' the news on Twitter is not helping, and the BBC boycott is beyond petty.
The PM has been doing fairly frequent press conferences.
A mistake was made last week. Here should have been more follow up after the press conference. Allowed a backlash to develop unchallenged.
Their refusal to come on the BBC is looking increasingly ridiculous. They are behaving like a child sticking to a position ‘just because’ to climb down is to lose face. Which isn’t acceptable in current circumstances.
It is worth adding that we are not certain that all are susceptible. The level of "herd immunity" needed for STD control applies only to sexually active people for example, relevant to PREP for HIV for example. We dont yet know why some people are resistant to COVID19, or what percentage of the population they are.
A further point is that by stopping community testing we neither know the R0 nor the level of "herd immunity" directly, though there are some indirect measures such as numbers hospitalised etc.
That is the only part of government policy where I’m now clear what it is. And it seems fairly clearly wrong.
The resources argument doesn’t make sense to me. Obtaining good and accurate information is almost always a good investment of resources.
It is worth adding that we are not certain that all are susceptible. The level of "herd immunity" needed for STD control applies only to sexually active people for example, relevant to PREP for HIV for example. We dont yet know why some people are resistant to COVID19, or what percentage of the population they are.
A further point is that by stopping community testing we neither know the R0 nor the level of "herd immunity" directly, though there are some indirect measures such as numbers hospitalised etc.
Sturgeon at her post cobra press conf said that there would still be limited random testing - presumably with those latter factors in mind?
(1) data so far shows no reinfection (2) hospitals being overwhelmed is exactly what they are trying to control for. He's saying "if the strategy doesn't work, it won't work. Therefore we shouldn't try it" (3) Lots of people think it will become endemic. I tend to agree (4) Yes. But how long?
That's a thoughtful header, but the problem is Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes.
A legislature might take a very different view about what constitutes a violation of human rights to the European Court of Human Rights. And, that legislature might be correct. How do you avoid the kind of situation you have in the US, where the Supreme Court has become a very partisan organisation?
I guess the answer to that is that judicial appointments over here are simply not politically contested in the same way (despite recent rumblings in the conservative press), and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The other advantage we have over the US is that if the ECHR ever does go haywire like that, we still retain the option of resiling from it.
Assessment of the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 cases suggests that, similar to SARS-CoV, patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms. In most cases, individuals are usually considered infectious while they have symptoms; how infectious individuals are, depends on the severity of their symptoms and stage of their illness. The median time from symptom onset to clinical recovery for mild cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for severe or critical cases.3 There have been case reports that suggest infectivity during the asymptomatic period, with one patient found to be shedding virus before the onset of symptoms.4 Further study is required to determine the actual occurrence and impact of asymptomatic transmission.
You’d think supermarket shares ought to be going up, with this bumper volume of sales.
Displaced sales, rather than new sales. Who knows what life is going to be like in 4 weeks. We might all be under curfew and only allowed to go shopping once a week.
Assuming normal stocking resumes, surely a lot of this food is going to be wasted. People will be having Corona parties to get through it all
what kind of party do you have with toilet rolls, not sure it will be much fun
So the public are now in full on panic mode. Good. The same morons who said it was just flu or a cold now realise the terrible fate awaiting us.
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The public is not in full on panic mode. It only takes a few idiots to strip supermarket shelves of toilet roll. Most people will listen to advice and engage with it.
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.
as we don't manufacture anything , we are at back of the queue and countries will be hanging on to them for themselves.
Assessment of the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 cases suggests that, similar to SARS-CoV, patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms. In most cases, individuals are usually considered infectious while they have symptoms; how infectious individuals are, depends on the severity of their symptoms and stage of their illness. The median time from symptom onset to clinical recovery for mild cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for severe or critical cases.3 There have been case reports that suggest infectivity during the asymptomatic period, with one patient found to be shedding virus before the onset of symptoms.4 Further study is required to determine the actual occurrence and impact of asymptomatic transmission.
It’s saying that in theory it shouldnt be highly transmissable before symptoms but In practice it appears that it is. Which we already know.
Houston, we have a communications problem.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402 Prof van Schaik noted that the UK is the only country in Europe that is following what he described as its "laissez-faire attitude to the virus". But a Department of Health and Social care spokesperson said that Sir Patrick's comments had been misinterpreted. "Herd immunity is not part of our action plan, but is a natural by-product of an epidemic. Our aims are to save lives, protect the most vulnerable, and relieve pressure on our NHS," he said. "We have now moved out of the contain phase and into delay, and we have experts working round the clock. Every measure that we have or will introduce will be based on the best scientific evidence. "Our awareness of the likely levels of immunity in the country over the coming months will ensure our planning and response is as accurate and effective as possible."
Which might come as news to those staunchly defending the herd immunity strategy over the last couple of days...
Could those who were explaining to us with such certainty over the last couple of days the herd immunity strategy explain what it is now ?
As a couple of people said below, it sounds as though the big press conference was actually a bit more of a placeholder than a definitive declaration.
The government is to publish the models we were told on here we didn’t need to see.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51893736 It follows strong criticism of the government's strategy from more than 200 scientists, who have written to ministers urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19. The total number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK has reached 1,140, while 37,746 people have been tested. Downing Street said its "next planned interventions" will come into force soon, and that it will publish models and data it has used during its decision-making process. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that government, local authorities, charities, friends and neighbours "will need to be part of the national effort to support the shielded". He also said the British public had "never been tested like this" since the Second World War and issued a "call to arms" to manufacturers, asking them to "transform their production lines" to make ventilators. "Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices, to protect themselves and others, especially those most vulnerable to this disease," he said.
It is an extremely unpopular PR branding but ultimately the end point is most of us are going to get this.
Smooth the curve is the same as herd immunity.
Stop the curve is the different policy in this pandemic.
Stop the curve though is most likely repeated curves, over years.
So the public are now in full on panic mode. Good. The same morons who said it was just flu or a cold now realise the terrible fate awaiting us.
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The public is not in full on panic mode. It only takes a few idiots to strip supermarket shelves of toilet roll. Most people will listen to advice and engage with it.
Another point is that the numbers are still very low. All the talk is of herd immunity, 60% infection rate etc etc. We are currently assumed to be somewhere between 0.01% and and 0.1% infection. It's barely noticeable. When the hospitals are overwhelmed most people will not notice it. Except for it being all over the media. For somebody to rationally feel personally at risk (of getting it, let alone getting seriously ill, let alone dying) the numbers have to be significantly higher than currently.
I thought I was a cynic, who had seen it all in politics.
Yet, I have to say, I am genuinely stunned by the number of people on twitter who are desperate, and I mean desperate, to see the Chief Science Officer and Chief Medic wrong.
The way their tweets read. They want granny to die to prove Boris should never have trusted these guys.
It's strange how so many of them are left-wing. Usually they support the experts.
The other angle here is whether you pay attention to other countries, or whether the only authority you believe in is the *British* government.
Yep our myopia is quite fantastic. We genuinely seem to think the only top scientists are old British white men. Never mind the phenomenal knowledge base in places who are actually experienced in dealing with this kind of deadly disease.
It's so pathetic. Brexit is partly to blame, of course. The quaint old notion that Britain is actually still a superpower.
We're not. And we're making a laughing stock of ourselves.
English, not British. Our idiocy is English exceptionalism. Perhaps this pandemic will make these supermen wake up and realise who we are - the fading embers of a superpower now largely at the self-harm stage
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
good luck hoping that , greedy grasping low life's everywhere will be trying to make out of it, big amount of people would stiff you rather than be decent. We will see the mettle of people in this and UK will be found wanting in many cases for sure, the me me me attitude in UK is pretty dire.
Assessment of the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 cases suggests that, similar to SARS-CoV, patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms. In most cases, individuals are usually considered infectious while they have symptoms; how infectious individuals are, depends on the severity of their symptoms and stage of their illness. The median time from symptom onset to clinical recovery for mild cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for severe or critical cases.3 There have been case reports that suggest infectivity during the asymptomatic period, with one patient found to be shedding virus before the onset of symptoms.4 Further study is required to determine the actual occurrence and impact of asymptomatic transmission.
It’s saying that in theory it shouldnt be highly transmissable before symptoms but In practice it appears that it is. Which we already know.
Is it? They're saying they've identified ONE possible case of presymptomatic transmission (this is WHO/China report). Now there may be debate about what "symptomatic" means of course.
The NHS guidance is currently following the assumption that it isn't (based on the evidence). Which is worrying if the evidence is wrong.
So the public are now in full on panic mode. Good. The same morons who said it was just flu or a cold now realise the terrible fate awaiting us.
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The public is not in full on panic mode. It only takes a few idiots to strip supermarket shelves of toilet roll. Most people will listen to advice and engage with it.
Good I am glad. I want the public to be sober, calm, aware and alert. I want them to heed government advice and go beyond it in many situations.
I am being slightly facetious as for many weeks the public have been a mixture of ignorant and apathetic. That was troubling because the most effective measures are totally reliant on the public changing their behaviour.
So the public are now in full on panic mode. Good. The same morons who said it was just flu or a cold now realise the terrible fate awaiting us.
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The public is not in full on panic mode. It only takes a few idiots to strip supermarket shelves of toilet roll. Most people will listen to advice and engage with it.
Actually, it also only takes a few responsible shoppers who have worked out that if you may have to self-isolate for two weeks it is in everybody's interest that you have an extra 12 rolls of toilet roll. Idiot panic buying could be anything from an out of control epidemic to a complete fiction, and nobody has the data to determine the question.
I thought I was a cynic, who had seen it all in politics.
Yet, I have to say, I am genuinely stunned by the number of people on twitter who are desperate, and I mean desperate, to see the Chief Science Officer and Chief Medic wrong.
The way their tweets read. They want granny to die to prove Boris should never have trusted these guys.
It's strange how so many of them are left-wing. Usually they support the experts.
The other angle here is whether you pay attention to other countries, or whether the only authority you believe in is the *British* government.
Yep our myopia is quite fantastic. We genuinely seem to think the only top scientists are old British white men. Never mind the phenomenal knowledge base in places who are actually experienced in dealing with this kind of deadly disease.
It's so pathetic. Brexit is partly to blame, of course. The quaint old notion that Britain is actually still a superpower.
We're not. And we're making a laughing stock of ourselves.
English, not British. Our idiocy is English exceptionalism. Perhaps this pandemic will make these supermen wake up and realise who we are - the fading embers of a superpower now largely at the self-harm stage
You think we only have two scientists working on this?
"More than 200 scientists have written to the government urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19.
[many paragraphs later]
The group, specialising in a range of disciplines, ranging from mathematics to genetics, though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases, said the current measures are "insufficient" and "additional and more restrictive measures should be taken immediately", as is happening in other countries."
When the BBC gives prominence to the views of virologists on the Mandelbrot Set, one might expect a few legitimate criticisms to be made of that.
The Government is generally doing the best it can, though the boycott of the BBC should stop immediately, if only for this issue (although the organisation is hardly doing itself favours by the 'u-turn' nonsense, as if anything that isn't being done today, even if specifically mentioned as a measure for the near future, is a u-turn if it ever happens).
There are some interesting but speculative reports about ACE inhibition. Mainly because hypertension is cited as a co-morbidity. Not really my field, so interesting rather than worrying.
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.
On topic, the ECHR has produced some poor jurisprudence. Its decision on whole life prison sentences in particular stands out.
Poor decisions can emerge from any system of judicial oversight. The government’s real objection is that it is being overseen.
Can the electorate change the ECHR judges and decisions?
That inability of governments or electorates to change decisions is rather the point of a court of human rights. The idea is that human rights are fundamental and inalienable.
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Would it not be better to ask the electorate to have votes on what they consider to be fundamental human rights? Why should judges decide?
You want to advocate referendums on such matters?
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
These are principles rather than specific cases. What gives judges the right to determine what is and what isn't acceptable?
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
And what if the moon is made of green cheese? Will there be mining expeditions that lead to elevated cholesterol levels? For now, let’s deal with actualities.
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
Considering Russia and Turkey are members of the ECHR and Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not why should we care what they decide.
So the public are now in full on panic mode. Good. The same morons who said it was just flu or a cold now realise the terrible fate awaiting us.
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The public is not in full on panic mode. It only takes a few idiots to strip supermarket shelves of toilet roll. Most people will listen to advice and engage with it.
Actually, it also only takes a few responsible shoppers who have worked out that if you may have to self-isolate for two weeks it is in everybody's interest that you have an extra 12 rolls of toilet roll. Idiot panic buying could be anything from an out of control epidemic to a complete fiction, and nobody has the data to determine the question.
That’s nearly a roll a day: is that really what people usually use?
Given all the confusion, isn't there a case for closure of stock markets for a while? Why wouldn’t this be a good idea? I’m sure there are plenty of reasons, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Comments
Hello Chapter 11 my old friend...
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing-source-data
The government has spent so long trying to steamroller its views on a hostile opposition without any compromise that now that it needs consensus it has no ability to draw on a sense that it is looking after the wider good among its opponents. This problem is very much its own creation, especially when it wants to take an internationally unusual approach.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/
The government’s hostility would have more credibility if it had not shown itself to be consistently hostile to any form of rule of law controlling it. It wants to be able to act without any check at all.
Also it's a big lost opportunity not to have a gold medal for handwashing.
Why bother having judges at all? Just leave everything to public votes. After all, it’s not as if lawyers do anything other than spout words.
I cannot believe that Japan will want the Olympics to go ahead without spectators. Surely better to delay until you can make back some of the money spent on the event.
Edit - note use of paracetamol - French govt advising against Ibuprofen in favour of Paracetamol.
What if, one day, these judges decide that detaining people in prison is against a person's human right?
The point of human rights principles is that they apply to everyone, including the unpopular groups. This should not be like X Factor, where contestants can pull at the heartstrings to get the public to vote for them.
Who even gets to decide what is a principle that needs a public vote and what is simply an application of an existing principle? The ECHR would argue that everything they decide comes from the principles in the original Convention.
It’s just you don’t like how they’ve applied it sometimes.
In the fourth one, you can actually see herd immunity working.
It might be 'reasonable' to determine that if someone is imprisoned for some socially agreed offence ...... theft for example ...... and no reasonable attempt is made to rehabilitate them, that that is against their human rights.
The Middle East?
Because by over-reacting and distorting our priorities, we can do harm to the thousands of people already dependent on the health service, those whose chances of survival would be compromised or destroyed if their treatment were to be disrupted. This is why I support the steady approach taken by our Government so far.
Some suggest we should have taken drastic action early on – that schools should be closed, that borders should be shut, that we should all be confined indoors. But after a lifetime in medicine, I’ve seen many crises come and go and I know that wrong-headed intervention can cause as much damage as the problems it is supposed to cure.
Let me be blunt: if we rush to ‘act’ for the sake of being seen to act, we are certain to condemn vulnerable people to a premature death.
This is not to underestimate the gravity of the situation.
While for most people, this will be a minor illness – no worse than a bad cold – there will be many others for whom it is serious.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8113349/KAROL-SIKORA-Panic-fear-contagious-virus-theyll-kill-people.html
"This is very important," Scott Morrison said at a briefing, adding that the measure would take effect from midnight on Sunday (13:00 GMT).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51894322
Hopefully now they might start doing the most basic of remedial actions rather than just sitting on social media howling at the moon.
Start washing your hands and stop getting on public transport coughing and spluttering you utter cretins.
Three weeks ago. YouGov reports the British public are least concerned about Coronavirus and have done least to change their behaviour.
The question is whether losing the right to vote should be tied in with this. We don’t go round shining a torch into the souls of most voters before determining whether they can vote. So we don’t make the right to vote contingent on being a decent human being. The ECHR’s approach is simply that removing the vote from prisoners is not a proper part of the punishment.
That is a human rights decision. You don’t like it but you presumably also accept that prisoners have some human rights (the right to life, the right not to be tortured). Applying principles in detailed cases is exactly what judges are for.
As a couple of people said below, it sounds as though the big press conference was actually a bit more of a placeholder than a definitive declaration.
The government is to publish the models we were told on here we didn’t need to see.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51893736
It follows strong criticism of the government's strategy from more than 200 scientists, who have written to ministers urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19.
The total number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK has reached 1,140, while 37,746 people have been tested.
Downing Street said its "next planned interventions" will come into force soon, and that it will publish models and data it has used during its decision-making process.
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that government, local authorities, charities, friends and neighbours "will need to be part of the national effort to support the shielded".
He also said the British public had "never been tested like this" since the Second World War and issued a "call to arms" to manufacturers, asking them to "transform their production lines" to make ventilators.
"Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices, to protect themselves and others, especially those most vulnerable to this disease," he said.
School closures could wipe 3% from UK GDP, ministers warned
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/mar/13/coronavirus-school-closures-uk-gdp-ministers-warned
So a highly infectious disease (eg measles) with an R0 of 10 requires in the region of 90% immunity for "herd immunity". A less infectious disease with an R0 of 2 requires a circa 50% immunity for "herd immunity" to work.
The Coronavirus has an R0 of about 2.5 at present, so a 60% level of infection is required for that "herd immunity" to be effective. That works out at about 40 million Britons needing to catch it.
The China/ROK/Hong Kong/Japan approach is to reduce the R0 below 1 as soon as possible, which causes the infection to fizzle out without "herd immunity". If this is in effective at eliminating the disease, that is great, but if it is not then the level of infections needed for "herd immunity" is significantly reduced. The two approaches are not contradictory.
We know COVID19 has a significant latent period of a couple of weeks before any particular individual reaches crisis point, so any attempt at titrating measures by numbers of severely ill will always be 2 weeks behind when they were really needed. I also think that the idea that this is controllable like a tap being turned is delusional.
I see my decision some months ago to pay less attention to news is being vindicated again:
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1238971152002883587
Its results for now seem to be limited to the panic buying in the supermarkets.
In this country we - rightly in my view - take the view that judicial activism is not a good thing.
The law is, and should be, what Parliament says it is. Judges should base their decisions on the law and on precedent. Not on political objectives or philosophies.
People want to deny prisoners the vote? I disagree, but OK. Pass a law saying so so it applies henceforth (I don't think one should introduce retrospectivce punishment - a bad precedent).
The public are full-on panic mode?
Hardly. The local pub was heaving last night even if the TV sport was thin gruel. The usual reaction is mild amusement.
Smooth the curve is the same as herd immunity.
Stop the curve is the different policy in this pandemic.
Pay airlines to use grounded planes and empty airports as Covid 19 triage/isolation centres. Aircrews are good at looking after people, planes have beds. AIrports can move large numbers of people around securely. Lots of catering capacity. Oxygen is on tap.
It’s clumsy but it would work.
A legislature might take a very different view about what constitutes a violation of human rights to the European Court of Human Rights. And, that legislature might be correct. How do you avoid the kind of situation you have in the US, where the Supreme Court has become a very partisan organisation?
Though the ‘just pass a law’ approach on its own leads to situations, as in the US, where felons are still denied the right after their release.
And when government passes a law saying it’s OK to torture in some circumstances ?
A further point is that by stopping community testing we neither know the R0 nor the level of "herd immunity" directly, though there are some indirect measures such as numbers hospitalised etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/apr/01/alarm-as-government-rewrites-uk-torture-guidance-in-secret
And it seems fairly clearly wrong.
The resources argument doesn’t make sense to me. Obtaining good and accurate information is almost always a good investment of resources.
(2) hospitals being overwhelmed is exactly what they are trying to control for. He's saying "if the strategy doesn't work, it won't work. Therefore we shouldn't try it"
(3) Lots of people think it will become endemic. I tend to agree
(4) Yes. But how long?
The other advantage we have over the US is that if the ECHR ever does go haywire like that, we still retain the option of resiling from it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872745/Infection_prevention_and_control_guidance_for_pandemic_coronavirus.pdf
from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control
2.2 Incubation and infectious period
Assessment of the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 cases suggests that, similar to SARS-CoV, patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms. In most cases, individuals are usually considered infectious while they have symptoms; how infectious individuals are, depends on the severity of their symptoms and stage of their illness. The median time from symptom onset to clinical recovery for mild cases is approximately 2 weeks and is 3-6 weeks for severe or critical cases.3 There have been case reports that suggest infectivity during the asymptomatic period, with one patient found to be shedding virus before the onset of symptoms.4 Further study is required to determine the actual occurrence and impact of asymptomatic transmission.
In endemic livestock diseases there is an approach of eradication, vaccination or export bans.
If everyone else eradicates it but the UK doesn't then we can't travel because of the risk of infecting others...
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1238837158007447558
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1238837159446097920
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v1
Anger with the government is a natural part of that. Someone must be to blame. It's the governments fault innit.
Hopefully they are furiously swearing at Boris Johnson whilst washing their hands.
The NHS guidance is currently following the assumption that it isn't (based on the evidence). Which is worrying if the evidence is wrong.
I am being slightly facetious as for many weeks the public have been a mixture of ignorant and apathetic. That was troubling because the most effective measures are totally reliant on the public changing their behaviour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402
"More than 200 scientists have written to the government urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19.
[many paragraphs later]
The group, specialising in a range of disciplines, ranging from mathematics to genetics, though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases, said the current measures are "insufficient" and "additional and more restrictive measures should be taken immediately", as is happening in other countries."
When the BBC gives prominence to the views of virologists on the Mandelbrot Set, one might expect a few legitimate criticisms to be made of that.
The Government is generally doing the best it can, though the boycott of the BBC should stop immediately, if only for this issue (although the organisation is hardly doing itself favours by the 'u-turn' nonsense, as if anything that isn't being done today, even if specifically mentioned as a measure for the near future, is a u-turn if it ever happens).
There are some interesting but speculative reports about ACE inhibition. Mainly because hypertension is cited as a co-morbidity. Not really my field, so interesting rather than worrying.
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1238817274590629888
Please don't make it political
The ECHR like the League of Nations has failed.