• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Draconian measures

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,297
The limiting factor for healthcare & hospitals won't be physical bedframes and ventilators, but staff. All well and good having a nightingale full of shiny new beds, but if there's no nurses or doctors to staff it it's a glorified hospice.

The Healthcare unions supposedly accepted an increase in patients per medical staff member ratio by a factor of six when the hospitals opened.

Quality of care might suffer a bit, but I would not expect dramatic increases in mortality if the Nightingales are used.
Also, a glorified Hospice was pretty much how the Army Medical Corps wanted to use them anyway!

But NHS management was more concerned with keeping their hands metaphorically clean of the stain of a "hospital of death" than the greater good of proper triage.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
3,344
The Healthcare unions supposedly accepted an increase in patients per medical staff member ratio by a factor of six when the hospitals opened.

Quality of care might suffer a bit, but I would not expect dramatic increases in mortality if the Nightingales are used.
Also, a glorified Hospice was pretty much how the Army Medical Corps wanted to use them anyway!

But NHS management was more concerned with keeping their hands metaphorically clean of the stain of a "hospital of death" than the greater good of proper triage.
Also I believe Armed forces medical staff would have/can be used
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,437
Location
Taunton or Kent
The limiting factor for healthcare & hospitals won't be physical bedframes and ventilators, but staff. All well and good having a nightingale full of shiny new beds, but if there's no nurses or doctors to staff it it's a glorified hospice.

I also wonder if the issue around hospitals nearing capacity now is that they'd filled beds with people who've had (postponed) elective surgery and have then been caught out by sharp rises in cases. It's also worth pointing out that these capacity issues seem to be on a very local basis, there's nationally plenty of capacity still, but hospitals in the North West may be running out of space
Also I believe Armed forces medical staff would have/can be used
Did they not get a number of retired staff to return for this pandemic specifically, which could have helped staff the Nightingale Hospitals, either directly and/or directly?

The other issue of course with staffing is the mass number of nurse vacancies still ongoing; 40,000 the last time I checked.

How quickly and easily could we do a France and setup some of our trains to transport patients around the country in a form of mutual aid?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
9,198
The limiting factor for healthcare & hospitals won't be physical bedframes and ventilators, but staff. All well and good having a nightingale full of shiny new beds, but if there's no nurses or doctors to staff it it's a glorified hospice.

Just to point out that hospices do have nurses.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,297
Good point, but the general point of "without (sufficient) staffing it's just a different place for people to die" stands

Having a place for people to die that isn't hospital does improve the operation of a hospital
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,656
Location
Solihull
Also I believe Armed forces medical staff would have/can be used

I heard that but a lot of armed forces medical personnel are already working in the NHS (reservists). I suspect the number of available personnel is a bit less than people actually imagine.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,222
Location
UK
Being an ex-cop I'd say Theresa May is my worst PM - but she did most of her damage to the police and other emergency services when she was Home Secretary. I did have a little cheer when she resigned, but I don't think her successor has been an improvement.

CJ
Personally I yearn for the days of her strong and stable leadership; and I say that as someone who was not a fan of hers at all!
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
3,344
Personally I yearn for the days of her strong and stable leadership; and I say that as someone who was not a fan of hers at all!
Quite, although Blair would probably be trying to convince us that Covid had weapons of mass destruction.... well I suppose its a weapon of mass disruption
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,517
I actually think that if this fiasco had happened twenty years ago under Tony Blair's leadership he wouldn't have had us living under these ridiculous measures.

Blair made some serious blunders himself over the Iraq affair but I don't think he would have made quite as many ill fated judgements and ridiculous decisions like Boris has.

CJ
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,360
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I actually think that if this fiasco had happened twenty years ago under Tony Blair's leadership he wouldn't have had us living under these ridiculous measures.

Blair made some serious blunders himself over the Iraq affair but I don't think he would have made quite as many ill fated judgements and ridiculous decisions like Boris has.

CJ

One way or other the government machine wouldn’t have been so chaotic, and there would be some semblance of a full-time leader instead of one who only appears on a spasmodic basis for soundbite performances. I think Blair would have captured the mood better too.

It’s got to the point where when Boris opens his trap I instinctively want to do the exact opposite.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,495
Location
Cheshire
It is laws against people coming into close contact during a health emergency. The law for that was passed in 1984 and the specific provisions for this pandwemic were in the Coronavirus Act in March 2020. Specific measures are designed to counter the behaviour that might represent a threat to the health of others.
Some of the laws currently in force do affect me but that doesn't mean that I should expect a penalty to not apply to me just because I might not agree with them. Nobody has an absolute need to gather in a large social group.

Are you being serious? Nobody needs to gather in groups? Frankly I despair at that statement because if you and other people even for a moment believe it then what is the point in existing?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,028
Location
St Albans
Are you being serious? Nobody needs to gather in groups? Frankly I despair at that statement because if you and other people even for a moment believe it then what is the point in existing?
You've conveniently misquoted me there. I wrote "Nobody has an absolute need to gather in a large social group. Of course people need to socialise but remember the topic in discussion, this was a group of over 30 people who deliberately decided to ignore the law and assemble in a confined space. That was no random coincidental chance meeting, or even a small support group, - it was blatant contempt of the law, and their penalty, although in my opinion, slightly too high, was an appropriate response to that contempt.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,495
Location
Cheshire
You've conveniently misquoted me there. I wrote "Nobody has an absolute need to gather in a large social group. Of course people need to socialise but remember the topic in discussion, this was a group of over 30 people who deliberately decided to ignore the law and assemble in a confined space. That was no random coincidental chance meeting, or even a small support group, - it was blatant contempt of the law, and their penalty, although in my opinion, slightly too high, was an appropriate response to that contempt.

How have I misquoted you?
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,908
Location
0036
With respect to prosecutions for non-payment of the £10,000 FPNs:
Where I hope it would be duly thrown out as being completely out of proportion to the offence.
Wrong. Magistrates do not have the right to declare a law to be “completely out of proportion”; that is in the gift of the High Court and above.
I suspect not. The law has clearly been broken and so you'd be fined a similar amount plus costs.
Also wrong. The amount of a fixed penalty does not bind the magistrates in setting a fine on conviction.
I haven't read the latest iteration of the statutory instrument (which gets more of a mess with each change), but what options does the court have? Is it either 10k fine or acquittal? Can they impose any lesser penalty?
The magistrates court may impose a fine of any amount. Normally this will be 50 to 150% of the offender’s weekly income, but that is just a guideline which the bench may depart from if it wishes.
I was at Bromley South a few weeks ago and a member of staff repeatedly announced that people not wearing a face covering over their nose and mouth WILL be fined £3,200. No mention of exemptions either.
The platforms of Bromley South are outdoors and face coverings are not required to be worn whilst waiting on them, despite what Southeastern may want you to think. As such, no fixed penalty notices (of £3,200 or any other amount) are able to be issued.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,028
Location
St Albans
How have I misquoted you?
Either you don't understand the difference between: "Nobody has an absolute need to gather in a large social group" and "Nobody needs to gather in groups" in which case I apologise, because you weren't aware of the 'subtleties' of my defining the scope of my statement;
or, as I think your understanding of our language is not that limited, you were trying to intimate that stating there was no absolute need to gather in a large social group was tantamount to denying any need to gather in groups. As you well know, the law allows groups up to a defined size and consist commensurate with current recommendations to limit infection spread, so it was an attempt to distort what I wrote.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,495
Location
Cheshire
Either you don't understand the difference between: "Nobody has an absolute need to gather in a large social group" and "Nobody needs to gather in groups" in which case I apologise, because you weren't aware of the 'subtleties' of my defining the scope of my statement;
or, as I think your understanding of our language is not that limited, you were trying to intimate that stating there was no absolute need to gather in a large social group was tantamount to denying any need to gather in groups. As you well know, the law allows groups up to a defined size and consist commensurate with current recommendations to limit infection spread, so it was an attempt to distort what I wrote.

My point was that we now have laws that have not been through our proper democratic process that make people gathering in large numbers illegal. Just think about that for a minute, the very thing we have done for millions of years is now breaking the law, a law none of us had a say in. Are you really comfortable with that?
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,202
My point was that we now have laws that have not been through our proper democratic process that make people gathering in large numbers illegal. Just think about that for a minute, the very thing we have done for millions of years is now breaking the law, a law none of us had a say in. Are you really comfortable with that?
Interesting points.

Any (social) historians on here able to advise what restrictions were imposed on the general public in 1349 / 1665 when the Black Death / Great Plague was circulating in England?
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,744
Being an ex-cop I'd say Theresa May is my worst PM - but she did most of her damage to the police and other emergency services when she was Home Secretary. I did have a little cheer when she resigned, but I don't think her successor has been an improvement.

CJ

To be fair to May, judging her PM-ship on something she did in another job probably isn't too relevant. I personally think she would have dealt with this crisis better, and certainly wouldn't have had the likes of Cummings anywhere near it.
 
Joined
9 Feb 2009
Messages
807
Interesting points.

Any (social) historians on here able to advise what restrictions were imposed on the general public in 1349 / 1665 when the Black Death / Great Plague was circulating in England?

During a plague outbreak in the 1590s, Shakespeare’s Globe theatre was shut along with other entertainment & hospitality venues. In various outbreaks (they happened about every 20 years in London), people were confined to their homes with markings painted on the doors to warn people to stay away.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,495
Location
Cheshire
Interesting points.

Any (social) historians on here able to advise what restrictions were imposed on the general public in 1349 / 1665 when the Black Death / Great Plague was circulating in England?

I'm not sure this is a good comparison, perhaps a better one would be to compare the measures taken during the winter of 2017/18 when there were 50K+ excess deaths, many of which were caused by influenza.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Interesting points.

Any (social) historians on here able to advise what restrictions were imposed on the general public in 1349 / 1665 when the Black Death / Great Plague was circulating in England?

This is from the Wikipedia page on the plague of London in 1665. The passage on quarantine seems very familiar.

Another part of the Wikipedia article states that, as animals were thought to be the means of transmission of the plague, the authorities in London ordered a cull of dogs and cats. It was later realised that this was a mistake, as the dogs and cats would have helped to keep down the population of rats which were the true carriers of the disease. So the government floundering around and not knowing what they were doing, and implementing measures that did nothing or made the situation worse, is not a new thing.

Reports of plague around Europe began to reach England in the 1660s, causing the Privy Council to consider what steps might be taken to prevent it crossing to England. Quarantining (isolation) of ships had been used during previous outbreaks and was again introduced for ships coming to London in November 1663, following outbreaks in Amsterdam and Hamburg. Two naval ships were assigned to intercept any vessels entering the Thames estuary. Ships from infected ports were required to moor at Hole Haven on Canvey Island for a trentine – period of 30 days – before being allowed to travel up-river. Ships from ports free of plague or completing their isolation period were given a certificate of health and allowed to travel on. A second inspection line was established between the forts on opposite banks of the Thames at Tilbury and Gravesend with instructions only to pass ships with a certificate.[24]

The isolation period was increased to forty days – a quarantine – in May 1664 as the continental plague worsened, and the areas subject to quarantine changed with the news of the spread of plague to include all of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (all regions of the Dutch Republic); restrictions on Hamburg were removed in November. Quarantine measures against ships coming from the Dutch Republic were put in place in 29 other ports from May, starting with Great Yarmouth. The Dutch ambassador objected at the constraint of trade with his country, but England responded that it had been one of the last countries introducing such restrictions. Regulations were enforced quite strictly, so that people or houses where voyagers had come ashore without serving their quarantine were also subjected to 40 days of quarantine.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London#cite_note-25

Another part of the Wikipedia article states:-

" As time went by and the numbers of plague victims rose, people living in the villages outside London began to resent this exodus and were no longer prepared to accept townsfolk from London, with or without a certificate."

which is excatly the situation we have today, where certain countries will not allow UK citizens to enter without evidence of a negative COVID-19 test.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,174
Why doesn't Professor Pantsdown just shut the f*** up?

As far as I am concerned, he lost all credibility when he broke the rules of the lockdown that he advocated, so that he could visit his partner for a quick s**g.

I get really cheesed off when the BBC give him all this publicity, which he manifestly does not deserve.
I'd forgotten about his lockdown trip. I don't know why anyone listens to him any more. His prediction for Sweden was way out. Why would his predictions for the UK be any better?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,028
Location
St Albans
My point was that we now have laws that have not been through our proper democratic process that make people gathering in large numbers illegal. Just think about that for a minute, the very thing we have done for millions of years is now breaking the law, a law none of us had a say in. Are you really comfortable with that?
The 1984 Public Health act gives the government of the day powers to act in the event of a health emergency, similarly the 2004 Civil Contingencies act also provide a means of making what would normally be unreasonable laws and regulations. Given that we are in a health emergency situation that deemd by all experts that I have heard from, is far more of a national threat than a spike in the annual geriatric flu death rate, then these temporary measures are acceptable to me. Similar measures have been applied by most western administrations, so claiming that this country is uniquely bad is a fallacious point. Sweden, often quoted as a shining example of how it should be done is ignoring the cultural differences where the level of co-operation that it's citizens practice has allowed the COVID-19 problem to be tackled without as much legal force. The obsession with unconditional liberty in the UK (and significantly the US) has created a culture of seeking to frustrate any law that might even temporarily restrict any aspect of an individual's life designed to benefit society as whole. The more that this self-centred behaviour persists, the more examples there are to close off loopholes, ultimately ending in really tight restrictions, - far more damaging than anything that we've seen this year. Those looking to damage efforts to reduce infection spread should really be careful of what they wish for.
You can disagree with my view as much as you like, and apart from posting malicious insults, I don't have a problem with attacks on my views, and it doesn't change anything given the current rapidly worsening spread of the disease.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I'd forgotten about his lockdown trip. I don't know why anyone listens to him any more. His prediction for Sweden was way out. Why would his predictions for the UK be any better?

As I said on the thread about the Three Tier Lockdown in England, you should start calling him Professor Neil Fearguson. :D
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,517
I've just been reading in the Manchester Evening News and apparently there are also Tier 4 restrictions.

So not only are there Tiers 1, 2 & 3, there are also additional restrictions imposed by individual local authorities under Tier 4.

This to me just feels like complete and utter madness now. I'm beginning to feel like a contestant in a game show, trying to guess what I need to do.

I have visions of the Crystal Maze and Richard O'Brien locking me in my house because I innocently breached a restriction!

CJ
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,495
Location
Cheshire
The 1984 Public Health act gives the government of the day powers to act in the event of a health emergency, similarly the 2004 Civil Contingencies act also provide a means of making what would normally be unreasonable laws and regulations. Given that we are in a health emergency situation that deemd by all experts that I have heard from, is far more of a national threat than a spike in the annual geriatric flu death rate, then these temporary measures are acceptable to me. Similar measures have been applied by most western administrations, so claiming that this country is uniquely bad is a fallacious point. Sweden, often quoted as a shining example of how it should be done is ignoring the cultural differences where the level of co-operation that it's citizens practice has allowed the COVID-19 problem to be tackled without as much legal force. The obsession with unconditional liberty in the UK (and significantly the US) has created a culture of seeking to frustrate any law that might even temporarily restrict any aspect of an individual's life designed to benefit society as whole. The more that this self-centred behaviour persists, the more examples there are to close off loopholes, ultimately ending in really tight restrictions, - far more damaging than anything that we've seen this year. Those looking to damage efforts to reduce infection spread should really be careful of what they wish for.
You can disagree with my view as much as you like, and apart from posting malicious insults, I don't have a problem with attacks on my views, and it doesn't change anything given the current rapidly worsening spread of the disease.

So I'm going to take a guess that the experts you have heard from are the same experts that are trotted out with monotonous regularity by the government. The same experts that have been spinning out fatality & infection projections based on flawed modelling? If you don't mind I will reserve my right to disagree strongly with your views.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,282
Location
Yorkshire
I've just been reading in the Manchester Evening News and apparently there are also Tier 4 restrictions.
....
Not yet! See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...g-the-virus-and-could-we-see-a-tier-4.210639/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

So I'm going to take a guess that the experts you have heard from are the same experts that are trotted out with monotonous regularity by the government. The same experts that have been spinning out fatality & infection projections based on flawed modelling? If you don't mind I will reserve my right to disagree strongly with your views.
I didn't read the post you quote, as it was a huge wall of text not split into paragraphs, but based on this reply, I'm glad I didn't read it!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I'd forgotten about his lockdown trip. I don't know why anyone listens to him any more. His prediction for Sweden was way out. Why would his predictions for the UK be any better?
Only the UK government and media listen to him; most people know he has been utterly discredited.

See my post about him 5 weeks ago: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...to-lockdown-at-this-point.209250/post-4778867 ; I posted a link to an interview with Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, who is very scathing of Ferguson.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top