Re: COVID-19 Police state
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:26 pm
There are many fine points which I have deleted, but these few just reflect political bias. No health service runs at 1%, 10% or even 50% capacity. To do so would be a gross misuse of public money. In January there were 4123 adult critical care beds in England, of which 80% were occupied. That means about 700 were free. This is a perfectly reasonable number, but it would be hopelessly inadequate in the face of a huge increase in demand, as would any other aspect of medicine. If 10,000 more people got seriously ill with any disease that would be a problem - for example if food contamination caused very widespread food poisoning. It is not reasonable to expect that we should cope with illness by being ready to handle a vast increase in treatment.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:44 amAt yesterday’s briefing Gove was asked why ventilator capacity could be exceeded. We all know the answer to this:
NHS capacity is too low
- government under-investment for a generation
- 10 years of austerity worsening every metric
- coming into the crisis in Jan 2020 with almost no free beds
I think your only mistake here is in the phrase "government thinking". As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It looks to me like the goverment was not thinking, disorganised and, to the extent that they took scientific advice, were far too eager to seek out advice that provided reassurance rather than facing the statistical reality proven correct in Wuhan. The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.Infection rate is too high
- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government deliberately letting the rate rise in early March to get herd immunity, the chief scientific adviser saying on 13 March ”one of the key things we need to do is build up some kind of herd immunity”
There are 14,000 fewer UK beds than 10 years ago and half the number of beds of 30 years ago - even though demand for beds is far higher due to the aging population. Only 70% of patients entering A&E get treated within the 4 hour time target, when the target is 95%. There is not spare physical space to isolate infectious patients and there is an existing shortfall of trained staff.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:49 amThere are many fine points which I have deleted, but these few just reflect political bias. No health service runs at 1%, 10% or even 50% capacity. To do so would be a gross misuse of public money. In January there were 4123 adult critical care beds in England, of which 80% were occupied. That means about 700 were free. This is a perfectly reasonable number, but it would be hopelessly inadequate in the face of a huge increase in demand, as would any other aspect of medicine. If 10,000 more people got seriously ill with any disease that would be a problem - for example if food contamination caused very widespread food poisoning. It is not reasonable to expect that we should cope with illness by being ready to handle a vast increase in treatment.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:44 amAt yesterday’s briefing Gove was asked why ventilator capacity could be exceeded. We all know the answer to this:
NHS capacity is too low
- government under-investment for a generation
- 10 years of austerity worsening every metric
- coming into the crisis in Jan 2020 with almost no free beds
It was not an isolated instance of citing herd immunity. It was said many times, in different forms, for example a lengthy explanation from the CMO that the second wave in the autumn would be much larger if a highly effective lockdown happened now.I think your only mistake here is in the phrase "government thinking". As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It looks to me like the goverment was not thinking, disorganised and, to the extent that they took scientific advice, were far too eager to seek out advice that provided reassurance rather than facing the statistical reality proven correct in Wuhan. The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.Infection rate is too high
- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government deliberately letting the rate rise in early March to get herd immunity, the chief scientific adviser saying on 13 March ”one of the key things we need to do is build up some kind of herd immunity”
If the problem is caused by insufficient capcity, then we can look at international comparisons and make predictions. Here are some figures:lpm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:44 am
There are 14,000 fewer UK beds than 10 years ago and half the number of beds of 30 years ago - even though demand for beds is far higher due to the aging population. Only 70% of patients entering A&E get treated within the 4 hour time target, when the target is 95%. There is not spare physical space to isolate infectious patients and there is an existing shortfall of trained staff.
This was a warm winter and the flu season started early then fizzled out early. It was the easiest winter for years for the NHS - and even so bed occupancy was 95% in London in February before Covid cases hit the system. Planners say 85% is the ideal capacity level. When it comes to ICU beds, Spain has 15% more than us, Italy 25% more, France 50% more and Germany 200% more. Some other countries do run at the 50%-75% capacity level, many more run at the 75%-85% level, and the UK is an outlier running in normal times at the 85% to 95% level.
The NHS cannot cope with a difficult flu year. Above you state 10,000 more patients as "not reasonable to expect that we should cope with". But a moderate flu year every five years sees 10,000 to 20,000 more people in hospital and a once every 20 years flu epidemic could be 60,000 more hospital patients. These elevated levels are a normal health service requirement - yet you yourself have acknowledged the NHS is not ready to handle this sort of increase in treatment. This is without even getting to capacity for pandemics.
Depending on how you look at it, either 100% or 0% of Trident defenses are in use. They act as a deterrent, so are a bit like insurance. Your insurance is fully in use even if you don't claim on it. Alternatively, you could say they are 0% used as they have never been deployed in war. In either case, if we compare submarines 30 years ago to hospital beds, the number have fallen from 25 to 10, so that's an even bigger decline.We build huge spare capacity in other areas to protect British citizens. Only 25% of Trident defenses are actively in use, there are 2,000 tanks sitting idle waiting to be used, there are a hundred Typhoons sitting in hangers ready in case they are needed in the next 30 years. This huge spare capacity in protection of the citizens is not a "gross misuse of public money"? But a health services running at 80% with 20% spare capacity would be a "gross misuse of public money"?
Lots of false things end up being said many times in dofferent forms (e.g. MMR vs autism, power cables or mobile phone masts vs various ailments). That doesn't tell us anything about their origin.It was not an isolated instance of citing herd immunity. It was said many times, in different forms, for example a lengthy explanation from the CMO that the second wave in the autumn would be much larger if a highly effective lockdown happened now.The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.
There's this problem of confusing messaging again.
Not normally much foods apart from snacks and sweets.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:59 pmThere's this problem of confusing messaging again.
Although, don't most off licences in the UK also sell other foods and drink?
And I suppose if you're actually an alcoholic booze counts as an essential, because withdrawal could kill you. So maybe the police are only fining responsible drinkers and infrequent binge drinkers, and leaving addicts alone.
Why? She's by herself, she's not going up to people and coughing over them, she's just sat down. Last time I looked smoking and drinking weren't illegal, or even mentioned in the legislation they're trying to prosecute her under. There's nothing in it that specifies what type of exercise is to be taken or how long that exercise should last. And the legislation is there to reduce transmission of the virus. Nothing I can see that she did increases the chances of transmission. The photo of the officers in the article, however, don't appear to be following social distancing guidelines.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:58 amI would be in support of some police brutality for this waste of blood and organs
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/woman-ar ... -12526402/
Because she's breaking the law and wasting police time with her ridiculous f.cking b.llsh.t just to get the attention which she was unable to get with her 5G conspiracy theories and increasing the risk that the rest of us who are following the rules will be given an extended or stricter lock down. f.ck her and everyone who thinks like her. If you watch the full video on YouTube she has the "if I get it I get it" attitude whu h would be fine if there wasn't the chance that some innocent nurse or doctor may have to risk their lives trying to save her. She's an absolute pile of shite.Fishnut wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:08 pmWhy? She's by herself, she's not going up to people and coughing over them, she's just sat down. Last time I looked smoking and drinking weren't illegal, or even mentioned in the legislation they're trying to prosecute her under. There's nothing in it that specifies what type of exercise is to be taken or how long that exercise should last. And the legislation is there to reduce transmission of the virus. Nothing I can see that she did increases the chances of transmission. The photo of the officers in the article, however, don't appear to be following social distancing guidelines.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:58 amI would be in support of some police brutality for this waste of blood and organs
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/woman-ar ... -12526402/
The wasting of police time seems to be on the police. I can't see that this is any different to telling people they aren't allowed to buy Easter eggs or snooping through shopping trolleys.Officer: we spoke about 45 minutes or so ago...
Lady: we did, yes
Officer: how're you doing?
Lady: I'm fine thank you officer, how are you?
Officer: I'm very well thank you for asking. So when we spoke earlier, I'd said, I'd asked you why you were out, you said you were exercising mentally.
Lady: I am, yes.
Officer: OK. I said, well, I don't think that's in the spirit of what's happening.
Lady: well, in the spirit of social distancing, I'm sat her on my own. I'm not infecting anyone. That's the actual spirit
Officer: Do you know who else [wind prevents me from hearing the rest]
Lady: I don't know, and quite frankly, I'm not afraid to be honest. If I catch something I catch it, I'm only infecting myself. No-one's sat near me.
Officer: Well that's because I've just moved everyone else on.
Lady: That's good, yeah
Officer: ok. Right, so what I'm gonna ask is, would you be willing to go home.
Lady: I am willing to go home once the sun sets, yes.
Officer: ok, well you've been sat here for about an hour or so
Lady: I have, yeah, indeed, exercising mentally
Officer: I know, which is not one of the valid reasons to be out
Lady: Well it is, valid reason "exercising once a day" is a valid reason under the law
Officer: What our disagreement is about is whether this is exercising mentally...
Lady: it is, yes
Officer: [unclear] or physically
Lady: well I'm sorry but the law doesn't specify what form the exercise has to take
Officer: it doesn't
Lady: well there you go, I'm within my rights to exercise mentally, once a day, outdoors, for as long as I like.
Officer: And this is where the disagreement is gonna arise.
Lady: right, ok, so the letter of the law, what does it say?
Officer: exercising
Lady: right, which I'm doing, yes, I'm meditating here by the lake, by the river
Officer: My interpretation of it is that it's physical exercise
Lady: But that's your interpretation, that's not what the law says is it.
Break
Officer: So what I don't want to do is go over the top, at all..
Lady: Good
Officer: As I say, we spoke earlier...
Lady: We did, yeah
Officer: You've been out for about an hour or more now
Lady: I have, yeah
Officer: You've been smoking and drinking?
Lady: Er, yes I have been, yep
Officer: Alright, and we've had this disagreement over what is the definition of exercise
Lady: of exercise, yes, we have, yeah
Officer: so
Lady: it's not defined in law
Officer: If you're not gonna make your way home now, or, as you said, to the shops, or otherwise, if you're gonna continue to sit here, then..
Lady: minding my own business and social distancing? For an 'on the record' there's nobody around me here at all [pans her camera around to show only the two police officers anywhere near her) I'm sat here entirely on my own
Officer: [says something concurrently with her panning that I can't make out
Lady: yep
Officer: So can I continue to speak please?
Lady: yep
Officer: so if you don't move on I'm gonna have to take action. That action will come [uncleared] issue you with a fixed penalty..
Lady: I'm sorry but I won't accept a fixed penalty notice
Officer: OK. Were you not to accept a fixed penalty notice..
Lady: you can place me under arrest and take me to the station
Officer: ok
Lady: go right ahead, do that
Officer: so before I do that though..
Lady: I'm not going to accept a fixed penalty notice..
Officer: I know...
Lady: because I'm not breaking the law
Officer: you just said that, ok. But before we go down the route of arrest, I really do wanna check to make sure there is no other lawful reason why you might be out of your house.
Lady: I'm out shopping!
Officer: you're not
Lady: I'm going shopping on the way home!
Officer: now?
Lady: no! I said I want to stay here for sunset
Officer: Ok. Is there...
Lady: I'm going to stay here, look, there's the sun, it's very low in the sky
Officer: Madam, is there any other reason why, is there anything happening at home that might cause you to be out?
Lady: I wouldn't know because I'm not there
Officer: OK. There's no welfare issues or anything like that.
Lady: er, indeed not, not that I'm aware of
Officer: ok
break
Lady: I'm not going to willingly give you my details, you're going to have to place me under arrest and take me to the station where I can get proper legal representation
Officer: ok [unclear]
Lady: yep
Officer: Ok, could you let me speak please
Lady: yep
Officer: ok, so I'll be reporting you for the offence
Lady: go ahead
Officer: of failure to comply with the Health Protection Coronavirus..
Lady: ah sorry, yeah but I'm...
Officer: [unclear] I'll give you a chance to reply, I will, ok, so it's going to be a [unclear] offence. I propose to do that by issuing you a fixed penalty notice, ok, it can be dealt with here, and it can be dealt with now, ok. The issuing of a fixed penalty notice, you do have the right to appeal it..
Lady: ah, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to accept it
Break
Officer: So in order for me to report you, I'm going to require your name and address.
Lady: I'm sorry, but I.. Is that a request or that a demand Officer?
Officer: wha? I need your name and address
Lady: Is it a request, or is it a demand?
Officer: well, in this light, it's a demand
Lady: what, so is it, you're allowed to demand under the law, are you? Or request?
Officer: In order for me to issue you a fixed penalty notice...
Lady: I'm not going to accept that
Officer: I know but let me get through it, I need your name and address. Should you..
Lady: I'm unwilling to give that to you officer
Officer: Should you be unwilling to give it, then I will have to ascertain your name and address in another way
Lady: OK, go right ahead
Officer: which is going to be by arresting you
Lady: yep! Please do so.
Officer: ok
Lady: I'm happy
Officer: So with the time at 13 minutes past 6, I'll be arresting you. The arrest is under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [not sure if I heard that right] ok
Lady: uh huh
Officer: in that I require your name and address in order to process you for the offence of coronavirus [muffled]
Lady: right, are you going to place me in handcuffs now?
Officer: no, I'm not!
Lady: well, I think you need to
Officer: are you going to [unclear]
Lady: no! I'm not, I'm a peaceful person. I'm sat on this bench, by this river, minding my own business, I'm socially distanced. I'm not infecting anyone around me, there is nobody around me.
break (now at the police van with 4 officers in view
Lady: gosh, all of you officers just for me! I should be flattered really.
Another officer: [unclear]
Lady: er no, I'm out exercising. It's not... that's a lawful excuse
Another officer: [putting his hand in front of the lens] you've been arrested now, ok. So we're going to take all you [unclear]
Lady: sorry?
The same officer as last time: Just listen! Relax!
Lady: I am relaxed.
The same officer as last time: you'll get all your property [ends]
Great argument there, well evidenced. You've certainly convinced me.
Why should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.
This is heavy handed police nonsense. You are advocating police brutality against someone who is causing no harm to anyone.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:57 pmWhy should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.
There's been plenty of heavy handed police nonsense recently and this wasn't it.
She was doing nothing that was a public health risk.The Regulations are made under public health legislation, and not public order legislation, and this distinction is important.
For the avoidance of doubt my original comment about police brutality was, of course, tongue in cheek.dyqik wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:05 pmThis is heavy handed police nonsense. You are advocating police brutality against someone who is causing no harm to anyone.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:57 pmWhy should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.
There's been plenty of heavy handed police nonsense recently and this wasn't it.
I do not think she deserves violence. I made a tongue in cheek comment to that effect which I now regret because it will no doubt lead to dozens of "how were to know that you were not being serious" etc which I find tedious.Stephanie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:04 pmI don't think that's what Fishnut is saying at all. But the law isn't clear on what exercise is. It also doesn't specify how long you should be out, or how many times.
Indeed, there's guidance on mental health that suggests getting out in the sunshine, from what I understand.
So I'm struggling to see why you think the woman deserves violence. That seems rather extreme.