Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[BJames]

Of course not but, equally, I’m not convinced it would result in 200,000 deaths. Wasn’t that prediction based on Ferguson’s discredited forecast?

Let’s face it, the only thing that has increased the COVID 19 death toll markedly beyond that of a bad flu season, is the fact it has been able to run rampant in care homes - 50%ish of all deaths occur in care homes.

I also *don’t* support:

- the worst economic recession for 300 years, leading to the prospect of enormous unemployment, and friends and family members of mine who are worried about paying their mortgages;

- thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) of premature deaths from cancers, and other causes, as a direct result of focusing solely on reducing deaths from COVID 19;

- a generation of young people having their education severely compromised, and their prospects damaged;

- the government borrowing tens of billions to pay the wages of people who are sitting idle when they could (and should!) be working;

- illiberal and sinister “social distancing” measures, which have lead to the complete suspension of normal life in the UK, and have devastated the mental health of millions.

Frankly this country has started to resemble a police state over the last few months, and is a place I increasingly no longer recognise as the benign, free country, I thought I lived in.

I know now's probably not the right time to consider this in any proper detail but I do wonder whether following this, some lawyers might challenge the government's decisions to impose lockdown and social distancing measures as illegal (especially in the ways they have, rushed through or around parliament)... although I do think they genuinely believe it's what is best for the country, I'm not convinced that it is actually firmly grounded in law. Plus, we don't want this to set precedent for them to do whatever they want in the future, if not in terms of public health then in terms of "security"... something which has been a massive hindrance to the app by the looks of things.

I haven't looked into the legalities of lockdown at all so I'm happy to be corrected or advised accordingly.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yet another example of the world going mad. This is the text from a meme that has crossed my Facebook feed a number of times today.

Remember when someone would sit beside you on the bus? Honestly I'm glad that's now rightfully a crime.

So not only do people now believe that close proximity to other humans is a crime, but some people are celebrating it. If this really is the case then stuff it, let's just go all the way and chuck nukes at each other. At least that will end it quickly for humanity instead of this slow, tortuous death of humanity by self-loathing.

Honestly, I despair right now....

 

[43066]

I know now's probably not the right time to consider this in any proper detail but I do wonder whether following this, some lawyers might challenge the government's decisions to impose lockdown and social distancing measures as illegal (especially in the ways they have, rushed through or around parliament)... although I do think they genuinely believe it's what is best for the country, I'm not convinced that it is actually firmly grounded in law. Plus, we don't want this to set precedent for them to do whatever they want in the future, if not in terms of public health then in terms of "security"... something which has been a massive hindrance to the app by the looks of things.

I haven't looked into the legalities of lockdown at all so I'm happy to be corrected or advised accordingly.

Short answer: no.

The government can legislate to do whatever they want, just so long as they can get it through parliament.

Slightly longer answer:

The bill giving rise to the government’s current “emergency powers”’ received broad cross party support, was correctly passed by both houses, received royal assent etc. Therefore it is good law.

Parliament is sovereign and the UK government has *a lot* of latitude - in fact, it can legislate for absolutely anything it wants - just so long as that legislation gets through both Houses of Parliament.

Could it be attacked on human rights grounds? Possibly - but that doesn’t ultimately lead anywhere if the wording of the legislation requires the Human Rights Act to be contravened. The UK courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility, but will still be bound to follow it, because legislation passed by a previous parliament cannot bind a subsequent parliament.

Could it be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights? Yes, but that can only pronounce that the legislation is incompatible with the convention - and that is ultimately toothless.

The government could also simply repeal the HRA, and formally withdraw the UK from the ECHR, just so long as it could get the appropriate legislation through parliament!

 

[yorkie]

Yet another example of the world going mad. This is the text from a meme that has crossed my Facebook feed a number of times today...

Except it's false as it's not a crime. It's also likely to be very short lived (I'll create a thread about that shortly)
..

onestly, I despair right now....

Don't dispair; the "lockdown enthusiast" brigade remains extremely vocal but their numbers are in severe decline, and among the working population they are now a very tiny minority. I'm now back at work daily and pretty much everyone I've spoken to is glad to be getting back to normality.

Extremists on any 'side' of any debate will always be vocal but they never represent the majority.

 

[Enthusiast]

It turns out, that I don't owe them anything, and between destroying the housing market, shifting the burden of 2008 onto my generation, and three months of authoritarian restrictions on my life, they're significantly overdrawn.

The first two are outside the scope of this thread but when considering the third you should recall that the stated purpose of the lockdown was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed - not to protect older people who were on their last legs. That aim was long ago met (in fact the NHS never came remotely close to being overwhelmed). The problem is that since that original aim was met many of the public now believe that the aim is to protect everybody from the virus. Plainly and simply that cannot be done. The latest relaxations are still less than a week old so it's too early to see whether they have had any effect. But new cases are still running at around 1300 per day so it is still spreading. Whether it will evolve into a less virulent strain (as many viruses do) or whether it will simply diminish nobody knows. But this country cannot continue as it is and it is incumbent on the government to make that understood and get the country back to normal. Any plans for a nonsensical "new normal" are simply plans to spread the number of cases (and, regrettably the number of deaths) over a longer period. The trouble is that in doing so the damage being caused to the country will extend to unsustainable levels. I'm afraid to say that those who believe leaving the house means certain death or who treat every one of their fellow human beings as a potential murderer will simply have to stay indoors and leave the rest of us who are not inflicted with such paranoia to get on.

 

[BJames]

@43066 That's helpful, thanks.

Don't dispair; the "lockdown enthusiast" brigade remains extremely vocal but their numbers are in severe decline, and among the working population they are now a very tiny minority. I'm now back at work daily and pretty much everyone I've spoken to is glad to be getting back to normality.

Extremists on any 'side' of any debate will always be vocal but they never represent the majority.

Hopefully their vocality might subside the more people start to ignore their point of view. It will hopefully start being an ignorant viewpoint to keep being locked down as more and more start to realise the impacts on the economy and society. I think too many people think that we can just stay like this and then once we've got a vaccine things will go straight back to the way they were - they're living in their own little fantasy world.

Everyone I speak to as well is extremely happy to be getting back to normal, and those who haven't got back to work or some form of normality yet can't wait (with one exception, but she works at a pub and doesn't relish the prospect of social distancing there - can't say I blame her really).

 

[Richard Scott]

Most people seem to be coming around to idea that we now just have to get on with it. Seems politicians are losing control of the lockdown with a lot of people ignoring rules (especially the 5 mile limit here in Wales). If they think they need to have an element of control then need to have sensible rules in place that people can see the sense in not keep trotting out the keep 2 metres away, don't go more than 5 miles etc. Noticed how much more relaxed people were in Tesco on Sunday - hardly any facemasks and no panic if someone went close to them.

 

[ashkeba]

And the vast majority of Covid deaths are those with conditions that would potentially have resulted in death within the next year of two anyway...

That has been disproved, hasn't it? It was the high end of a Professor Ferguson estimate.

Would most covid-19 victims have died soon, without the virus?

A new study suggests not

www.economist.com

the years of life lost (ylls) for the average Briton or Italian who passed away was probably around 11, meaning that few of covid-19’s victims would have died soon otherwise.

 

[Silverlinky]

Although it is true that between 90 and 95% of all Covid registered deaths in the UK also had some underlying health issue.

That suggests that Covid outright has only killed between 2000 and 4000 people in the UK. That's 0.006% of the population.

 

[Richard Scott]

That has been disproved, hasn't it? It was the high end of a Professor Ferguson estimate.

Would most covid-19 victims have died soon, without the virus?

A new study suggests not

www.economist.com

Statistics again. If most people were older with short life expectancy then a few younger people (say 20 year olds) died that would make the average life expectancy much greater. Can do anything with maths to massage figures!

 

[43066]

That has been disproved, hasn't it? It was the high end of a Professor Ferguson estimate.

Would most covid-19 victims have died soon, without the virus?

A new study suggests not

www.economist.com

Isn’t that graph only telling us how many years of life a patient of any given age, with any given number of health conditions might stand to lose? Lo and behold! The younger they are, and the fewer conditions they have, the more years they stand to lose. It doesn’t tell us which conditions they have, and it doesn’t disprove that age + underlying conditions = a massively increased risk or sadly dying from Covid 19.

Someone in their 50s dying “with” the condition, plus one underlying condition, might well have a one *very serious* underlying condition (terminal cancer, end stage heart disease, COPD?), someone in their 90s might have ten or eleven pre-existing conditions, and have died due to general frailty + Covid 19. That graph doesn’t distinguish (unless I’m missing something?).

We also know (assuming we can believe the official figures) that some 50% of UK fatalities have been amongst care home residents. What % of those people could reasonably have been expected to live for many more years hence, irrespective of the current pandemic?

More relevant stats might be, how many people of healthy working age (under 65), with no underlying conditions, have died of /with Covid 19?

These people represent a vanishingly small number of fatalities (less than 1%), if most sensible sources are to be believed (far too many to cite!).

 

[sheff1]

Meanwhile you can go into Tesco touch any item you like without this ridiculous paranoia.

Indeed. And the checkout staff have been touching thousands of pre-touched items (some of them touched mutiple times) every day for the last 3 months. I have obviously missed the reports of mass outbreaks of covid-19 amongst supermarket staff causing the closure of stores across the country.

 

[sheff1]

The bill giving rise to the government’s current “emergency powers”’ received broad cross party support, was correctly passed by both houses, received royal assent etc. Therefore it is good law.

Parliament is sovereign and the UK government has *a lot* of latitude - in fact, it can legislate for absolutely anything it wants - just so long as that legislation gets through both Houses of Parliament.

Has the Dolan legal challenge been thrown out then ?

 

[sheff1]

It seems sane enough in Sweden

https://twitter.com/i/status/1273229690346582018

Short video shows a walk through a shopping centre on 17th June which looks completely "normal" rather than 'new normal'.

 

[43066]

Has the Dolan legal challenge been thrown out then ?

Has it got any legs to start with?

As per my above, assuming the (tenuous) procedural grounds fail, it’s a challenge on human rights grounds. If it succeeds, where does it lead?

It leads to a declaration of incompatibility with the HRA, and the courts will be bound to give effect to it anyway. Because if parliament pass a law, the courts are bound to give effect to it (google sovereignty of parliament). So long as they can do that, there’s no such thing as the government acting “ultra vires”. They have *absolute power*.

The UK government could legislate to guillotine the queen, make walking a dog on the streets of Paris illegal etc. Just so long as they can get it through Parliament, it will be perfectly good UK law!

(Note: this is not the same as Boris Johnson proroguing Parliament - that was a much wider constitutional question because parliament wasn’t consulted.)

Corona virus legislation is, quite simply, the UK government passing law via both Houses of Parliament, in the usual manner.

 

[sheff1]

Has it got any legs to start with?

He and his lawyers seem to think so. We will have to see whether the High Court agrees with them or you.

 

[Huntergreed]

From the legal perspective, I would most certainly hope that the countries who locked down much harsher than us and didn't allow any exercise or outdoor time whatsoever will face strong legal action, as I would argue this is a statutory human rights violation, and even more importantly statutory child abuse, from a mental and psychological perspective. I'm very glad as a country we didn't take things quite this far (although admittedly I did before the lockdown was announced wonder if this may be the case).

As stated the world hasn't gone mad, this crisis has simply highlighted some key issues across all countries, sectors and governments. I personally think this is about as perfect a chance as we'll ever get to fix some of these issues including:

Much more attention given to the climate crisis, we should not let the levels of pollution reach what they were before.
'Pandemic Planning' in governments, as quite frankly it's clear in many countries that they imposed statutory house arrest out of panic without any formal planning done.
Reduction in aviation levels. Do we need all those flights every day? This is killing the planet, and I would argue flight cuts may benefit both the domestic tourism industry and the climate if we take the opportunity to make this change.

However first we need to stop this global overreaction and start to see things from a mature, measured perspective, which right now no government seems to be fully doing.

 

[43066]

He and his lawyers seem to think so. We will have to see whether the High Court agrees with them or you.

I’m sure they do agree with him. If you pay a lawyer enough, they’ll tell you anything. Trust me, I’ve worked with some mightily expensive ones. I can remember a client paying £50k for a ten page opinion from a QC, which turned out to be wrong (or at least didn’t go his way - it was only an opinion, after all). The QC got paid anyway. And nobody cared because it was a hedge fund paying the fees.

An eccentric millionaire with a crowd funding claim has rocked up? Happy days! Wedlake Bell will get paid, whether they win or lose on this, trust me. That doesn’t mean they can overthrow a constitutional principle that has existed since the time of Charles 1st.

But they’ll enjoy the hourly rates they earn trying to do so. Mark my words haha.

 

[al78]

Extremists on any 'side' of any debate will always be vocal but they never represent the majority.

Exactly, very well said. Those with the loudest voices do not always speak for the majority, it is just those are the ones who stick in your mind.

 

[43066]

Just to clarify: I’ve gone down a rabbit hole above re the legal niceties. If the government has correctly passed the law requiring face coverings on public transport. Then it’s good law. Nothing changes that.

That doesn’t mean to say I agree with it. I don’t! I also don’t agree with lockdown.

I find these rules we are expected to live by profoundly illiberal, and utterly disgusting. I will never, ever, wear a mask.

 

[Huntergreed]

Just to clarify: I’ve gone down a rabbit hole above re the legal niceties. If the government has correctly passed the law requiring face coverings on public transport. Then it’s good law. Nothing changes that.

That doesn’t mean to say I agree with it. I don’t! I also don’t agree with lockdown.

I find these rules we are expected to live by profoundly illiberal, and utterly disgusting. I will never, ever, wear a mask.

I do think there needs to be a very large scale enquiry, globally, into whether panicking nations into statutory house arrest with fear driven propaganda is an acceptable thing for a 21st century democratic government to do.
I didn’t mind living with the restrictions initially, as I realised how serious the spread was and genuinely thorough it was to get through the initial peak.

That being said, I had no idea when this started just how long this would actually go on for, and how serious and devastating the economic impact of the lockdown would be. It is now my opinion that we need to ask ourselves “is it really right to suppress civil liberties and (debatably) human rights (freedom etc) under the suspicion that something “might” happen (second peak)”? I’ve maintained for a while now the focus of the country needs to change.

The correct way to approach the remainder of this crisis is not in my opinion to make the virus centre stage, but rather the economy. I would argue something like a “get Britain moving” campaign which allows for most businesses to open with 1m distancing, compulsory bookings for restaurants, cafes and pubs (seated only), no distancing enforced on public transport, and a simple “be mindful, respect personal space” reminder, along with highlighting the importance of hand hygiene all whilst working on and running an effective track and trace system is the way to go. This I know is not going to happen, but this is, in my opinion, the best way to approach the future of this crisis. The British population is either terrified of the virus unnecessarily or enjoying being paid to sit home and do nothing. We must get the economy moving again very soon or the upcoming recession may be far more damaging than this, not that deadly (in pandemic terms) virus. This societal limbo where we seem to be riding the death rate like a rollercoaster and cat-and-mouse chase to try and keep the overly obsessed “R“ below 1 simply isn’t working, and we need to change our approach.

 

[Journeyman]

Just to clarify: I’ve gone down a rabbit hole above re the legal niceties. If the government has correctly passed the law requiring face coverings on public transport. Then it’s good law. Nothing changes that.

That doesn’t mean to say I agree with it. I don’t! I also don’t agree with lockdown.

I find these rules we are expected to live by profoundly illiberal, and utterly disgusting. I will never, ever, wear a mask.

I've managed to avoid it completely so far. At some point soon, I may have to resume work travel between West Lothian and Kent. Normally I'd fly or get the train, but both options look ghastly at the moment. If I can get my boss to cover the expenses, I'll drive instead. It's about eight hours of driving, so longer with rests, and absolutely not the way I want to do it, but at least the car is my own space and I can drive without wearing a bloody mask and having to worry about stupid, pointless rules.

 

[43066]

I do think there needs to be a very large scale enquiry, globally, into whether panicking nations into statutory house arrest with fear driven propaganda is an acceptable thing for a 21st century democratic government to do.
I didn’t mind living with the restrictions initially, as I realised how serious the spread was and genuinely thorough it was to get through the initial peak.

At the risk of going massively off topic. There is no global consensus of what democracy is, or should be. Or even whether it’s a good thing or not (I happen to believe first past the post is the least bad of a shocking range of options). There’s a wider question about what we what democracy to deliver.

Deleted the rest of what I said. It’s a small world, and skins are thin...

 

[43066]

I've managed to avoid it completely so far. At some point soon, I may have to resume work travel between West Lothian and Kent. Normally I'd fly or get the train, but both options look ghastly at the moment. If I can get my boss to cover the expenses, I'll drive instead. It's about eight hours of driving, so longer with rests, and absolutely not the way I want to do it, but at least the car is my own space and I can drive without wearing a bloody mask and having to worry about stupid, pointless rules.

I’d do the same. Avoid that last leg with Southeastern, at all costs.

 

[ashkeba]

Isn’t that graph

Please note the text and not only the pictures.

More relevant stats might be, how many people of healthy working age (under 65), with no underlying conditions, have died of /with Covid 19?

I hope you live old enough to be dismissed as irrelevant by the likes of you!

And that looks like changing the claim because the previous post was incorrect.

 

[Timpg]

After loosely digging around trying to do a bit of personal research I stumbled across this... now I may be interpreting this wrong but surely if COVID is as bad as what it is portrayed to be.... it should definitely be high up there on the list of HCID’s???

 

[6862]

After loosely digging around trying to do a bit of personal research I stumbled across this... now I may be interpreting this wrong but surely if COVID is as bad as what it is portrayed to be.... it should definitely be high up there on the list of HCID’s???

This came up in the news a few months ago, and I think it was used as ammunition to attack the government (what isn't these days?). It does seem strange at first when you consider what an impact the disease seems to be having, but with increasing evidence of a <1 % mortality rate, and an effective testing system (I've not seen many complaints from people struggling to get tests recently like at the beginning), I think it's quite right not to count the 'rona as a HCID any more. I think the impact we are all feeling is increasingly due to our response to the virus. We used to hear a lot about the 'hammer and dance' (what a ridiculous way to describe the response), but increasingly it's 'massive sledge hammer vs tiny nail'. If you use a sledge hammer to tap in a tiny pin or tack you're liable to whack your hand often, and that's what's happening here.

 

[Timpg]

This came up in the news a few months ago, and I think it was used as ammunition to attack the government (what isn't these days?). It does seem strange at first when you consider what an impact the disease seems to be having, but with increasing evidence of a <1 % mortality rate, and an effective testing system (I've not seen many complaints from people struggling to get tests recently like at the beginning), I think it's quite right not to count the 'rona as a HCID any more. I think the impact we are all feeling is increasingly due to our response to the virus. We used to hear a lot about the 'hammer and dance' (what a ridiculous way to describe the response), but increasingly it's 'massive sledge hammer vs tiny nail'. If you use a sledge hammer to tap in a tiny pin or tack you're liable to whack your hand often, and that's what's happening here.

well the thing I find odd about it all is the article suggests that COVID-19 was removed from the HCID list prior to us being put into lockdown?? yet Avian flu still remains on the list, even though when we had an outbreak years ago.... we carried on as normal per say...
I for one can’t help but be suspicious of this whole situation and wether to believe it is as bad as what we are being led to believe by not only the government, but by the endless bombardment of media reports!!

 

[45107]

well the thing I find odd about it all is the article suggests that COVID-19 was removed from the HCID list prior to us being put into lockdown?? yet Avian flu still remains on the list, even though when we had an outbreak years ago.... we carried on as normal per say...
I for one can’t help but be suspicious of this whole situation and wether to believe it is as bad as what we are being led to believe by not only the government, but by the endless bombardment of media reports!!

I believe that there are only 2 facilities available to deal with ‘HCID’. Hence the reason for removing COVID-19 from the list before thE number of cases exceeded capacity to deal with it.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

well the thing I find odd about it all is the article suggests that COVID-19 was removed from the HCID list prior to us being put into lockdown?? yet Avian flu still remains on the list, even though when we had an outbreak years ago.... we carried on as normal per say...
I for one can’t help but be suspicious of this whole situation and wether to believe it is as bad as what we are being led to believe by not only the government, but by the endless bombardment of media reports!!

You need to visit www.vernoncoleman.com or look at a YouTube video I posted on here weeks ago. He claimed that coronavirus was downgraded and taken out of the HCID category on March 19, 4 days before house arrest lockdown was imposed. Now I see the proof, I’m asking myself at what level of daily deaths can common sense take hold of these terrified people? Seasonal flu is a big killer, it happens every year, and is - presumably - not classed in the HCID category. Are we going to start having lockdowns every winter, too?