politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A British Gift – the ECHR

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

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.

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1238516889195708416?s=21

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1238892743210012674?s=21

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

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?

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

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.

Great visualisation of different Covid-19 strategies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

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.

You mean like "income tax"!

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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?

tlg86 said:

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

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.

edmundintokyo said:

tlg86 said:

@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.

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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?

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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).

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

Sandpit said:

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?

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.

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1239073665104429056

Err it has been? Think Neil is a poor judge of this pandemic.

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).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51894322

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Great visualisation of different Covid-19 strategies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

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.

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.

GideonWise said:

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.

YouGov clearly doesn’t sample in the US, then.

Nigelb said:

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.

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Great visualisation of different Covid-19 strategies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

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.

GideonWise said:

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.

Full on panic mode is not conducive to sensible actions.
Its results for now seem to be limited to the panic buying in the supermarkets.

AlastairMeeks said:

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).

Mr Wise,

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.

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

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).

It’s clumsy but it would work.

Jonathan said:

Here’s a mad idea.

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 ;-)

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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 ?

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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 ?

Too late, it’s already happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/apr/01/alarm-as-government-rewrites-uk-torture-guidance-in-secret

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

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.

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

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.

Sent you a PM

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1238865934179340294

(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?

This is news? From WHO/China report and against virtually everything that has been previously reported:

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.

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

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

Benpointer said:

Barnesian said:

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?

will be act of god and lucky they are giving you a credit I imagine.

A sobering thread.

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1238837158007447558

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1238837159446097920

alex_ said:

This is news? From WHO/China report and against virtually everything that has been previously reported:

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.

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.

GideonWise said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

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.

ACE2 Expression in Kidney and Testis May Cause Kidney and Testis Damage After 2019-nCoV Infection
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v1

SouthamObserver said:

GideonWise said:

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.

tyson said:

Benpointer said:

Barnesian said:

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.

SouthamObserver said:

GideonWise said:

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.

RochdalePioneers said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:

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?

Mr b,

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.

bigjohnowls said:

DAlexander said:

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.

Nowhere has enough critical care beds for this.

Please don't make it political

IshmaelZ said:

SouthamObserver said:

GideonWise said:

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.