IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 9, 2020 15:58:31 GMT
Sorry if I've not been paying attention closely enough, but what's the theoretical point of this mooted 14-day quarantine for air travellers again? Genuinely confused. Isn't this like doing a breath test for sober people arriving at a Wetherspoons at 10pm on a Saturday night? I get that it's proposed to come in in June when hopefully the situation will be better in the UK, but surely the majority of destinations will be even further over the rainbow than us at that point, as indeed they are now, and so arrivals from most destinations would perhaps only dilute our infected populace rather than concentrate it. Without further good scientific information it feels like a stab at a half-baked nationalist populist measure (heaven forbid!). Am I being too cynical? Even on that score though, I can't see that effectively killing off international Summer holidays for everybody is going to be more popular than not. So, yes, I'm bemused. Side note - It also feels like the Government has an increasing inclination to road-test controversial measures by leaking them to the public early and gauging reaction. That's great for Pop Idol (whatever that is) but should what we think about this actually matter in this type of situation? I wonder if this idea will mysteriously evaporate overnight, or not. Now that they've trailed it, they will look worse if they don't do it - so they will do it. It isn't evidence based. But I do hear many, many people screaming loudly about closing the borders. The government is petrified of being accused of not doing enough, given it's tardiness at the beginning, so it is now erring on the side of doing too much/being too cautious, and in a not joined up way. (i.e. if you were going to be cautious, you'd think mandating mask use might be less harmful and more effective than quarantining arrivals from places with fewer coronavirus cases than the UK). EDIT: and being cynical too, one might think it will help when the Brexit arguments eventually resurface - look, because we left the EU we could manage our own borders!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 9, 2020 10:40:17 GMT
Aah, nothing quite like the sound of a slamming stable door and a horse galloping into the distance .... "UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers"www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023Quarantine is useless when the people coming in are less likely to have the virus than the people who live here (UK). If anyone needs quarantining at the moment, it's those of us already here! When cases are much lower, yes quarantine can be useful to stop "reimporting" infections and reseeding. But then ask yourself how and when quarantine can ever be lifted once you impose it? Until there is a vaccine (if there is), the virus will be in the wild. Better get used to it for the forseeable future (years) if it is brought in.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 11:21:48 GMT
Or make sure they come to yours for the booty call. Actually, the moral is don't offer free expert advice in good faith to the government unless you want to be stalked and have every part of your life trawled by the media for possible slip-ups and inconsistencies and to be thrown to the wolves by the government for political expediency. Or maybe if you're in a position of prominence, just learn to practice what you preach? Easier to do something else with your spare time than be perfect in all aspects at all times. You can have your surreptitious sex (twice in two months!) in peace then.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 11:17:36 GMT
I'm afraid that is not correct - social contact is but one aspect affecting R. If you wash your hands and practice other hygiene, isolate if symptomatic or in close contact with someone who is symptomatic, and do sensible non-lockdown type social distancing, you've done most of the work in reducing R. Then add in track and trace and a decent testing infrastructure. And PROTECT THE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE! (doesn't reduce R, but in caps because we have been so poor at it). Schooling is absolutely vital to children's long term outcomes, particularly from more deprived backgrounds, so I dispute that. The government may SAY the NHS is restarting normal care, but as someone working inside it I can tell you that it is far from the case. The staffing issues alone are a huge issue - due to self-isolation, childcare, redeployment. And people are still too afraid to leave the house and visit hospitals, reinforced by government ministers incorrectly stating that only emergency medical needs are a justification for leaving the house (Grant Shapps this week). I quite agree the government has spent too little time on certain public health issues. The hole in your strategy is that asymptomatic spreading is why this virus is able to spread so easily, and our track and trace, and testing, have been and still are inadequate. And the problem in care homes is what is now driving R up. So, you can't really make this argument for why we should be easing lockdown now when we're failing to achieve it. And we'll agree to differ on schooling, because what makes or breaks your future is dominated by class and nothing really has much affect on it. The NHS will, no doubt, take a long time to recover from this and a second wave ought to be the last thing they would want. As I keep saying, easing lockdown too soon will only leave us worse off in terms of both deaths and the economy.But I don't see how you can know that without knowing the health and economic costs of locking down too much and for too long? And by extension, you have then to be prepared to lockdown until there is a vaccine (if there ever is) - and you will have civil disorder as never before seen to add to the consequences.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 10:25:33 GMT
Quite emotive stuff, which is understandable but perhaps not conducive to the difficult trade offs we face. How many people are you prepared to "sacrifice" to cancer, heart disease, and all the other conditions that people are suffering and dying from because the health service can't treat them due to lockdown? How many kids' lives are you prepared to see irreparably ruined by losing a year of schooling? How many suicides from the stress of unemployment and financial ruin? Domestic violence victims? Alcohol related deaths? Psychiatric disorders due to the stresses of isolation? Those (and many more) are all real consequences of lockdown. Lockdown is not a harmless intervention, and the consequences are not just economic. The question is not just whether we are lifting it "too soon" but also whether it is "too late". Well, you didn't actually answer my question! But I'll give you some idea where we stand at the moment. R is estimated between 0.9 and 0.5, so on average 0.7. But if you take the lower figure of 0.5, people only need to double their social contact to see no decline in this epidemic. That may seem a lot until you consider that social contact has been cut to a bare minimum. It really won't take much in terms of loosening this lockdown to see R go above 1.0. As for all the other issues, yes, I don't deny that they matter, however, given that we have few meaningful figures on them, it's difficult to say how much. But I will point out that the NHS are now picking up treatment of other conditions even during the lockdown. And, honestly, no one is going to have their life completely ruined by loosing a year of schooling. Nor did the government take much notice of the increase in suicide, or anything else, during all the years of austerity. If they were to argue that they matter now, it would seems a little hypocritical, even though they undoubtedly do. Oh, and you didn't answer mine! I suspect because they are not questions that have answers. I want to minimise the overall long term consequences of this pandemic in terms of absolute years of life lost and quality of years of life lost. Sadly health economics is difficult, especially if you need data quickly and projected forward in time. And it rarely gives a black and white answer. Is one young death 40 years premature equal to 40 elderly deaths 1 year premature? How much is worth spending to extend life by 3 months or 6 months? Is it worth extending a life that is of poor quality? Etc etc.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 10:16:30 GMT
Quite emotive stuff, which is understandable but perhaps not conducive to the difficult trade offs we face. How many people are you prepared to "sacrifice" to cancer, heart disease, and all the other conditions that people are suffering and dying from because the health service can't treat them due to lockdown? How many kids' lives are you prepared to see irreparably ruined by losing a year of schooling? How many suicides from the stress of unemployment and financial ruin? Domestic violence victims? Alcohol related deaths? Psychiatric disorders due to the stresses of isolation? Those (and many more) are all real consequences of lockdown. Lockdown is not a harmless intervention, and the consequences are not just economic. The question is not just whether we are lifting it "too soon" but also whether it is "too late". Well, you didn't actually answer my question! But I'll give you some idea where we stand at the moment. R is estimated between 0.9 and 0.5, so on average 0.7. But if you take the lower figure of 0.5, people only need to double their social contact to see no decline in this epidemic. That may seem a lot until you consider that social contact has been cut to a bare minimum. It really won't take much in terms of loosening this lockdown to see R go above 1.0. As for all the other issues, yes, I don't deny that they matter, however, given that we have few meaningful figures on them, it's difficult to say how much. But I will point out that the NHS are now picking up treatment of other conditions even during the lockdown. And, honestly, no one is going to have their life completely ruined by loosing a year of schooling. Nor did the government take much notice of the increase in suicide, or anything else, during all the years of austerity. If they were to argue that they matter now, it would seems a little hypocritical, even though they undoubtedly do. I'm afraid that is not correct - social contact is but one aspect affecting R. If you wash your hands and practice other hygiene, isolate if symptomatic or in close contact with someone who is symptomatic, and do sensible non-lockdown type social distancing, you've done most of the work in reducing R. Then add in track and trace and a decent testing infrastructure. And PROTECT THE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE! (doesn't reduce R, but in caps because we have been so poor at it). Schooling is absolutely vital to children's long term outcomes, particularly from more deprived backgrounds, so I dispute that. The government may SAY the NHS is restarting normal care, but as someone working inside it I can tell you that it is far from the case. The staffing issues alone are a huge issue - due to self-isolation, childcare, redeployment. And people are still too afraid to leave the house and visit hospitals, reinforced by government ministers incorrectly stating that only emergency medical needs are a justification for leaving the house (Grant Shapps this week). I quite agree the government has spent too little time on certain public health issues.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 9:14:36 GMT
Some good news for lazy people (and others who genuinely need help around the house), it appears cleaners and nannies are OK to work: Gov UK says "You are a tradesperson carrying out essential repairs and maintenance in people’s homes, or are carrying out other work in a home such as cleaning or paid-for childcare in a child’s home. You can continue work, providing that you are well and have no symptoms."
With the amount I'm saving from not holidaying / visiting pubs/restaurants, I'm tempted to get a cleaner. Would help if they could cut hair as well.
Tagging IFISAcava - perhaps if Prof Ferguson's friend had come armed with her feather duster (who knows, perhaps she did ), there wouldn't have been an outcry.
Yes - home dominatrix work - great defence in Court! They might try and get you on some other laws though... and the headlines might have been even more embarrassing! Not sure if I count as lazy, but I had always assumed that if your work was in someone else's home (maintenance, cleaning etc) that it was OK - I didn't see anything in the regulations that prohibited it - you can clearly not do that from your own home.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 9:07:39 GMT
I don't know what I have said previously that might have led you to these erronous conclusions.
The point I am making (which appears to be getting lost in translation) is that there is no such thing in life as zero risk. The important thing is understanding the risk and managing it accordingly.
We already have a perspective on risk: over 30,000 dead and highest level of deaths in Europe so far. Arguing that we don't is, to me, is bizarre, unless you want to challenge that perspective. No one ever said life was without risk. So, again, of no relevance to this discussion. As to understanding the risk and managing it accordingly, I think we in the UK have already failed that test. Implying that the risk is somehow overstated is only going to see a lot more people die. So, how many more people are you willing to sacrifice to Covid-19?Quite emotive stuff, which is understandable but perhaps not conducive to the difficult trade offs we face. How many people are you prepared to "sacrifice" to cancer, heart disease, and all the other conditions that people are suffering and dying from because the health service can't treat them due to lockdown? How many kids' lives are you prepared to see irreparably ruined by losing a year of schooling? How many suicides from the stress of unemployment and financial ruin? Domestic violence victims? Alcohol related deaths? Psychiatric disorders due to the stresses of isolation? Those (and many more) are all real consequences of lockdown. Lockdown is not a harmless intervention, and the consequences are not just economic. The question is not just whether we are lifting it "too soon" but also whether it will be done "too late".
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 8, 2020 8:58:11 GMT
The law doesn't ban that per se - it would however ban people being out of the place they are living for that purpose. Not that we are talking about parties - we are talking about two people. And we are not talking about what is "fine" - the law doesn't mandate handwashing but it is not at all fine to leave your hands unwashed. As I said - I am challenging your assumption that he could have been fined, and I am asking for what. I quite agree she could have been fined. So the moral of the story is that if there is talk of arranging a party make certain it's at your house? Or make sure they come to yours for the booty call. Actually, the moral is don't offer free expert advice in good faith to the government unless you want to be stalked and have every part of your life trawled by the media for possible slip-ups and inconsistencies and to be thrown to the wolves by the government for political expediency.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 7, 2020 23:29:45 GMT
For the avoidance of doubt I do not give permission for my comments to be used in an uncivil way.
I'm now aware of the 3 applications made at the hearing today. The hearing was between the borrower in the Unbolted case ("claimant") and an unrelated specialist loan and mortgage lender ("defendant")
I understand the total of the loan involved is £90k and the amount of the claim is circa £20k. The judge appeared to be shocked at the “extraordinary amount of money” which comprised the “wholly disproportionate” costs proposed by the claimant which were circa £1m.
The defendant pleaded that as the claimant had instructed his own firm to represent him that this allowed him the “unhindered ability to claim costs” under a “grossly inflated” budget.
The claimant has been seriously ill recently with Covid-19. I understand being obese is a risk factor.
Costs were eventually agreed upon at £42,500.The claimant had to pay 33% of costs of today's hearing due to unreasonable behaviour in the run up to the hearing. The judge allowed an application to stay the proceedings until July ’20 to allow parties to settle.The claimant has threatened to apply for a Group Litigation Order against the defendant if they don’t settle. Time estimate of the case is 3 days to be heard between 1st Dec ‘20 – Feb ’21. De ja vu anyone? Is it looking like his MO is to take up borderline vexatious claims, incur enormous legal costs, and thereby scare defendants into settling and paying some of his costs so that he ends up in profit? Since his costs are imaginary and limitless (it is just his own time) whereas the defendants actually have to pay theirs.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 7, 2020 13:22:08 GMT
Apologies, should have stated it was just my own personal opinion, (common sense) but did hear some expert state: "Travel in a aluminium tube with lots of other people, be it a train, bus or aeroplane is just not a good idea, as social distancing is almost impossible to achieve" There will always be nitpickers who refuse to read between the lines, preferring to forensically examine every single word, as if you are in a court of law. Most readers are capable of understanding "everyone on board" probably implies a "proportion on board", and "likely to catch" does not equal "will catch". They must be such a joy to sit with in the pub (assuming those days will ever return ). Don't mention the pub! Boy am I missing them.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 7, 2020 8:48:59 GMT
Are you sure? I understood the law bans gatherings of more than two people - not the case here - and even that refers to public gatherings - again not the case here. EDIT: I have just re-read the original and amended regulations. There is nothing about being not allowed to associate in private with people who are not part of your household. Have a read of the regulations and tell me which part of the law you think he broke and should have been fined for. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/data.pdfwww.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/447/made/data.pdfSo it's fine to have a load of friends around for a private party? The law doesn't ban that per se - it would however ban people being out of the place they are living for that purpose. Not that we are talking about parties - we are talking about two people. And we are not talking about what is "fine" - the law doesn't mandate handwashing but it is not at all fine to leave your hands unwashed. As I said - I am challenging your assumption that he could have been fined, and I am asking for what. I quite agree she could have been fined.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 22:23:01 GMT
But he didn't leave his house, so how could he have breached 6? The suggestion was that he should be fined, not her. Sorry, wasn't disagreeing with that, just highlighting where the issue lies. Should have been more specific that he shouldn't have been fined as he hadn't breached rules but obviously had to resign for encouraging/not preventing someone else from doing so don't disagree he had to resign in current climate - I do though regret that an expert scientist offering unpaid advice and who is not a politician standing on any particular platform should be stalked by the media and have their personal life raked over in this way - it will undoubtedly deter other experts from getting involved in future. EDIT: and particularly when the health secretary then gets involved in a very unpleasant tone (I choose that word carefully) and erroneously suggests the police should consider action against the expert helping his government. Who would want to get involved with that lot?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 22:07:28 GMT
Are you sure? I understood the law bans gatherings of more than two people - not the case here - and even that refers to public gatherings - again not the case here. EDIT: I have just re-read the original and amended regulations. There is nothing about being not allowed to associate in private with people who are not part of your household. Have a read of the regulations and tell me which part of the law you think he broke and should have been fined for. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/data.pdfwww.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/447/made/data.pdfI would suggest no 6 is the issue not no7 … unless we are classifying alleged/assumed horizontal jogging as a legitimate form of exercise. While he didn't break the rule, I would assume she didn't just turn up uninvited nor did he tell her that she was breaching the rules and to go home. But he didn't leave his house, so how could he have breached 6? The suggestion was that he should be fined, not her.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 21:47:46 GMT
The rules say that you are not allowed to associate with people outside of your household. From what I've read, if you refuse to take police advice you can be issued a £60 on-the-spot fine. No police advice was given to Professor Neil Ferguson because the police were unaware of this at the time. Indeed, it's nearly a month ago that the two transgressions occurred. That's if you leave or are out of the place you are staying without a reasonable excuse or in breach of other guidance (e.g. gatherings). He wasn't out of the house. There is no lockdown law about what you can do in the privacy of your own house (thankfully). We aren't discussing Ms Staat, but she may well have breached the law, on the basis that travelling across London for nookie-exercise is probably stretching things (though it is a very good form of exercise ).
|
|