The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Leeds Ram]

6 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

The article you posted was very interesting cheers. The dangers it refuted seemed more real to the prorouging of Parliament the Autumn before Covid, that a much higher proportion of the population were against vs than the minority who opposed the first lockdown.

Thanks, am glad you found it interesting ? Yeah you're not wrong, taking executive action in proroguing Parliament does fit very neatly into this type of argument even if it isn't technically a state of emergency. That did also lay up some very interesting constitutional questions about the powers of the PM and the role of the supreme court, with many feeling the supreme court had started to become a more activist body checking the powers of the executive in ways not necessarily imagined when the body was first created. 

[Bob The Badger]

20 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Yeah agree with your first paragraph.

Cheers for the link, I'll take a look. Full article would be interesting too thanks, sounds great.

Have you, or anyone else, seen the Pegasus stuff in the Guardian this weak? That looks like something far more dangerous than getting into nightclubs.

I've been following it on the US version of The Guardian.

It's quite staggering and I'm not really sure why it's getting less coverage elsewhere. 

This could be enormous.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

In the US at the moment 97.5% of hospital admission haven't been vaccinated and 99% of deaths haven't.

Irrespective of Boris and the Government u-turning at the drop of a poll, there's nothing contradictory about those stats.

What is happening in the US is of no consequence to me.

Patrick Vallance yesterday said that 60% of people in hospital were double jabbed, then he went back on that and said 60% had not had a vaccine. By my simple maths, that is 40% in hospital here that have had at least 1 vaccine.

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

If you read the emergency corona legislation you'll find there are plenty of limitations on executive powers most importantly the sunset clauses on the legislation that protect us, reintroduction of Parliamentary scrutiny and limitations on ministerial decrees that can be exercised. Furthermore, anything not enshrined in primary legislation can be challenged via the courts and potentially struck down if it crosses protections that primary legislation does give us. 

If all that wasn't enough we then have Parliamentary opposition in the form of Boris struggling with a few of his backbenchers and the press. Currently, the polling suggests people want more measures to be in place so the government is currently swimming against the tide of political opinion by opening up and easing all restrictions. That is hardly the actions of a populist government coming for your long earned hard fought liberty. 

Let’s hope you are right , personally will keep a healthy mistrust at this point ?‍♂️

[Leeds Ram]

Just now, Archied said:

Let’s hope you are right , personally will keep a healthy mistrust at this point ?‍♂️

I think a healthy mistrust would be being very worried if there were none of these things in the legislation and the government had granted themselves the authority to do what they like via decree for an unlimited time period. That's exactly the type of actions that have taken place in some authoritarian states such as Hungary due to Corona legislation. This has led to a complete lack of oversight in an already wilting constitutional illiberal democracy, but the inverse is what's happening here. 

[1of4]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Apart from when they start going down of course. 

Then we revert to other things like predictions by Neil Ferguson, total number of deaths or percentage of adults not vaccinated.

Some suggestions for what they could add to the coronavirus dashboard:-

Taxpayers money spent on the furlough scheme

The number of people that have lost their jobs

The number of businesses that have closed down

The number of children who have been unable to have an induction day at their new schools 

The number of students who have been unable to physically attend university 

 

 

4 hours ago, Archied said:

The amount of taxpayers money spent on fear campaign 

the number of people who have tested positive for covid and survived just fine

the last one there will never be on a dashboard as it gives the real picture and changes the perception of the virus , it’s threat to us and the manipulation of it??‍♂️

Lets not stop the list there

The scandalous amount of taxpayers money wasted on a test and trace system that has been a total disaster.

The taxpayers money that was given to friends and relatives of government ministers for goods and services, that were either totally inadequate or never turned up.

The amount of times there's been an announcement by Johnson at a Downing Street briefing, only for him to change his mind the next day.

[Eddie]

35 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I've been following it on the US version of The Guardian.

It's quite staggering and I'm not really sure why it's getting less coverage elsewhere. 

This could be enormous.

When there are more serious issues affecting the proles, like Meghan and Harry? I think not.

[maxjam]

22 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I think a healthy mistrust would be being very worried if there were none of these things in the legislation and the government had granted themselves the authority to do what they like via decree for an unlimited time period. That's exactly the type of actions that have taken place in some authoritarian states such as Hungary due to Corona legislation. This has led to a complete lack of oversight in an already wilting constitutional illiberal democracy, but the inverse is what's happening here. 

- Have the Govt said how long you will be barred from nightclubs for if you haven't had the jab?  Or is all future entry entirely dependant on being jabbed?

- Have the Govt defined what 'crowded venues' are?  We have already had one Govt official alluding to pubs being included this morning.

- Does being double jabbed prevent transmission of covid?  Then why outlaw the one thing (a negative test) that guarantees no spread.

- If we have a really bad flu season (60k deaths is being thrown around) will the passport remain purely for covid?

If no to any or all of the above and given the fact that the Govt have repeatedly stated that they had no intention of introducing vaccine passports is it not prudent to voice concern now before we risk losing even more freedoms?

IMHO infections will inevitably rise between now and September and assuming they do, why won't the Govt feel justified with introducing further restrictions on the unvaccinated - will public transport, supermarkets, offices, etc be next?

I'm willing to believe that they are utterly incompetent and gave zero thought to their plan and hope it will be stopped in the courts, but until its consigned to history I will continue to oppose it. 

[Archied]

55 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I think a healthy mistrust would be being very worried if there were none of these things in the legislation and the government had granted themselves the authority to do what they like via decree for an unlimited time period. That's exactly the type of actions that have taken place in some authoritarian states such as Hungary due to Corona legislation. This has led to a complete lack of oversight in an already wilting constitutional illiberal democracy, but the inverse is what's happening here. 

That’s all relative and though very healthy and interesting to know how other countries operate /stack up comparatively it doesn’t detract from the fact we are seeing unprecedented actions , policies , laws and regulations being imposed in this country that are so far removed from what we expect as a society, all this for a virus that the vast majority survive with no ill effects ,

yes we may not be as far down the road as other countries but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about the starting points of the journey down that same road??‍♂️

[maxjam]

 

[Leeds Ram]

6 minutes ago, Archied said:

That’s all relative and though very healthy and interesting to know how other countries operate /stack up comparatively it doesn’t detract from the fact we are seeing unprecedented actions , policies , laws and regulations being imposed in this country that are so far removed from what we expect as a society, all this for a virus that the vast majority survive with no ill effects ,

yes we may not be as far down the road as other countries but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about the starting points of the journey down that same road??‍♂️

The analogy of not being as far down the road doesn't really stack up though which was my point. These alternative countries have produced different forms of governing and ripped up existing protections that were already diluted before the coronavirus because they are implementing a style of governance termed 'illiberal democracy'. This is presented as a more 'democratic' alternative to liberal democracy predicated upon the argument that liberalism necessarily inhibits democratic approaches, therefore the roadmap in these countries has always been to strip away liberal protections that previously existed. For instance, in Hungary this has meant changing the existing constitution with specific wide ranging changes to the court system which has also been the case in Poland. 

This is not the case in the United Kingdom. The existing measures that have been implemented via Parliament are bundled with a lot of restrictions that I've already described such as sunset clauses limiting their time period, authorisation, use, and all secondary measures that flow from the legislation are able to be challenged in the courts too. So it's not the case that we're not as far down the road, it's more like we're on a very different road that rather than stripping away people's rights systematically, the legislation and limitations of the measures is designed to do the very opposite. I'm not saying that all concerns about the emergency measures are invalid but the idea that we're setting ourselves up to be permanently restricting essential freedoms to me doesn't match what the legislation and its limitations basically says. 

[WharfedaleRam]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

What is happening in the US is of no consequence to me.

Patrick Vallance yesterday said that 60% of people in hospital were double jabbed, then he went back on that and said 60% had not had a vaccine. By my simple maths, that is 40% in hospital here that have had at least 1 vaccine.

It was a bit confusing last night, I agree, but these simple stats just don't give the full picture do they? Whilst on the face of it, anyone who has had one vaccination, let alone two, and ends up needing hospital care is worrying. However, how many of this group are (significantly) obese, have diabetes, COPD or any other chronic underlying or acute condition which also affects their ability to 'cope' with the virus? 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, WharfedaleRam said:

It was a bit confusing last night, I agree, but these simple stats just don't give the full picture do they? Whilst on the face of it, anyone who has had one vaccination, let alone two, and ends up needing hospital care is worrying. However, how many of this group are (significantly) obese, have diabetes, COPD or any other chronic underlying or acute condition which also affects their ability to 'cope' with the virus? 

Plus the stats for the efficacy of the vaccines clearly show they aren't as highly effective (c.mid 60% for one, as opposed to c.mid 90% for two) until you've had two jabs and then 14(?) days afterwards. No idea what the 40% consists of.

Plus any jab means less serious covid than no jab.

Edited July 20, 2021 by RoyMac5

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Patrick Vallance yesterday said that 60% of people in hospital were double jabbed, then he went back on that and said 60% had not had a vaccine. By my simple maths, that is 40% in hospital here that have had at least 1 vaccine.

 

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Plus the stats for the efficacy of the vaccines clearly show they aren't as highly effective until you've had two jabs and then 14(?) days afterwards. No idea what the 40% consists of.

By way of explanation - from the BBC feed...

Reports of vaccinated people ending up in hospital causes alarm.

On Monday, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance revealed that around 60% of hospitalisations were among people who are unvaccinated.

So that means for every 60 unvaccinated people hospitalised, about 40 who have been vaccinated are also ending up in hospital. Does that mean the vaccines are not working very well? Absolutely not.

That’s because for every 60 unvaccinated people, there are about 440 vaccinated adults in the population.

So that means the numbers of vaccinated people in hospital are at least 10 times lower than they would be if the vaccines did not work at all.

The 60:40 ratio therefore suggests the vaccines are a little over 90% effective at keeping people out of hospital.

But the news is even better than that. The figures are skewed by the fact the people who are most likely to be unvaccinated are the younger age groups - the ones least likely to end up in hospital.

If you factor that in the vaccines look to be well above 90% effective at keeping people out of hospital – bang in line with what all the research suggests.

[Archied]

58 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

The analogy of not being as far down the road doesn't really stack up though which was my point. These alternative countries have produced different forms of governing and ripped up existing protections that were already diluted before the coronavirus because they are implementing a style of governance termed 'illiberal democracy'. This is presented as a more 'democratic' alternative to liberal democracy predicated upon the argument that liberalism necessarily inhibits democratic approaches, therefore the roadmap in these countries has always been to strip away liberal protections that previously existed. For instance, in Hungary this has meant changing the existing constitution with specific wide ranging changes to the court system which has also been the case in Poland. 

This is not the case in the United Kingdom. The existing measures that have been implemented via Parliament are bundled with a lot of restrictions that I've already described such as sunset clauses limiting their time period, authorisation, use, and all secondary measures that flow from the legislation are able to be challenged in the courts too. So it's not the case that we're not as far down the road, it's more like we're on a very different road that rather than stripping away people's rights systematically, the legislation and limitations of the measures is designed to do the very opposite. I'm not saying that all concerns about the emergency measures are invalid but the idea that we're setting ourselves up to be permanently restricting essential freedoms to me doesn't match what the legislation and its limitations basically says. 

Was there not a situation where things were implemented before they were voted on as they should have been?

and yes we all know that there are supposed limitations on these EMERGENCY powers but we have a government prepared to play very fast and loose which backs up the point that people do very much need to be concerned and watchful; prepared to challenge them in law courts , it’s very clear our political classes have scant regard for rules ,regulations and laws ,even ones they introduce themselves not days or weeks previously ??‍♂️,

im picking up that your view is no need for concern we can just trust them to just get on with it ??‍♂️

[Leeds Ram]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Was there not a situation where things were implemented before they were voted on as they should have been?

and yes we all know that there are supposed limitations on these EMERGENCY powers but we have a government prepared to play very fast and loose which backs up the point that people do very much need to be concerned and watchful; prepared to challenge them in law courts , it’s very clear our political classes have scant regard for rules ,regulations and laws ,even ones they introduce themselves not days or weeks previously ??‍♂️,

im picking up that your view is no need for concern we can just trust them to just get on with it ??‍♂️

The emergency legislation was put through the legislature faster than is usual because of the special circumstances of the situation. The corona emergency act is the initial piece of legislation where the authorisation for many measures come from and it's also the source of many of the constraints that inhibit the executive. There are specific measures that require Parliamentary votes which is again one of the limitations to the executives powers during this time which maybe you're referring to? There have been some rules that have been subject to judicial challenge such as the proposed ban on care home visitations that was argued to violate the Human Rights Act for instance. 

They aren't supposed limitations they are actual concrete legal limitations that have the full force of Parliament and the courts. Again, pretending the UK is in a position where there is no distinction between ourselves and authoritarian states where the rule of law means nothing is I think a pretty fundamental error. I'm not saying the government is perfect or we should be blind to potential 'mission creep' of these measures but there are significant limitations both in time and space for these measures. 

No, that's not what I've said or believe.  

[Archied]

51 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

The emergency legislation was put through the legislature faster than is usual because of the special circumstances of the situation. The corona emergency act is the initial piece of legislation where the authorisation for many measures come from and it's also the source of many of the constraints that inhibit the executive. There are specific measures that require Parliamentary votes which is again one of the limitations to the executives powers during this time which maybe you're referring to? There have been some rules that have been subject to judicial challenge such as the proposed ban on care home visitations that was argued to violate the Human Rights Act for instance. 

They aren't supposed limitations they are actual concrete legal limitations that have the full force of Parliament and the courts. Again, pretending the UK is in a position where there is no distinction between ourselves and authoritarian states where the rule of law means nothing is I think a pretty fundamental error. I'm not saying the government is perfect or we should be blind to potential 'mission creep' of these measures but there are significant limitations both in time and space for these measures. 

No, that's not what I've said or believe.  

Then we don’t really disagree on too much??‍♂️
my concern has and always will be the bringing in of inhuman laws and regulations as a massive over reaction to the virus we are faced with , the likening of these kind of inhuman laws to other less democratic countries is natural ,

the mechanics of how they are brought in or can be stopped , whilst interesting is not my main concern 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Archied

[Andrew3000]

2 hours ago, Wolfie said:

 

By way of explanation - from the BBC feed...

Reports of vaccinated people ending up in hospital causes alarm.

On Monday, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance revealed that around 60% of hospitalisations were among people who are unvaccinated.

So that means for every 60 unvaccinated people hospitalised, about 40 who have been vaccinated are also ending up in hospital. Does that mean the vaccines are not working very well? Absolutely not.

That’s because for every 60 unvaccinated people, there are about 440 vaccinated adults in the population.

So that means the numbers of vaccinated people in hospital are at least 10 times lower than they would be if the vaccines did not work at all.

The 60:40 ratio therefore suggests the vaccines are a little over 90% effective at keeping people out of hospital.

But the news is even better than that. The figures are skewed by the fact the people who are most likely to be unvaccinated are the younger age groups - the ones least likely to end up in hospital.

If you factor that in the vaccines look to be well above 90% effective at keeping people out of hospital – bang in line with what all the research suggests.

Im sorry but BBC have given up on journalism a long time ago. They are biased towards lockdown measures and are running emotive stories with unnecessarily provocative language designed to whip up social pressure against people who are cautious about the vaccine. All for the greater good of course. Where is the critical analysis in mainstream media and politics? This is a major problem. There are credible doubts about both policies but this is actively shut down by big tech and socially you risked being dismissed and shamed. Just for exercising caution, looking at the bigger picture and having the temerity to question authority.  It's a concern, no matter what you think about lockdown or vaccines, this is a wider trend .

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Im sorry but BBC have given up on journalism a long time ago. They are biased towards lockdown measures and are running emotive stories with unnecessarily provocative language designed to whip up social pressure against people who are cautious about the vaccine. All for the greater good of course. Where is the critical analysis in mainstream media and politics? This is a major problem. There are credible doubts about both policies but this is actively shut down by big tech and socially you risked being dismissed and shamed. Just for exercising caution, looking at the bigger picture and having the temerity to question authority.  It's a concern, no matter what you think about lockdown or vaccines, this is a wider trend .

Yep my wife just returned from school run ( childminder) to tell me she was harassed by a male parent ( I presume ) , she was outside in the open air and is mask exempt , she pointed out she was exempt and asked him if he worked for the school in any capacity which he didn’t , he carried on being rude and did a little jig whooping freedom day sarcastically ??????,

happens again I can tell you he will be visiting getting knocked out day ,,,,, wrong I know but this is where we are, big brave busy a holes thinking they are some moral higher being with licence to harangue women , brought about by a pathetic government and media

[Andrew3000]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Yep my wife just returned from school run ( childminder) to tell me she was harassed by a male parent ( I presume ) , she was outside in the open air and is mask exempt , she pointed out she was exempt and asked him if he worked for the school in any capacity which he didn’t , he carried on being rude and did a little jig whooping freedom day sarcastically ??????,

happens again I can tell you he will be visiting getting knocked out day ,,,,, wrong I know but this is where we are, big brave busy a holes thinking they are some moral higher being with licence to harangue women , brought about by a pathetic government and media

Jeez thats awful.  We are being turned against each other and it's wrong. The risks are not being contextualised and so threat is easily stimulated.