Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Neil]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

As I’ve said here before, I’m convinced it needs a ‘root and branch’ review, beginning with deciding what it’s meant to achieve, but I can see why there is such fear of the US model, because all too often the calls for reform come from foxes who I wouldn’t let within ten miles of a hen coop.

 

I'm not so sure. I worked in the care sector for about twenty years in total and because of my union responsibilities I saw beyond my own workplace into every care establishment operated by a large council. During that time there were three top down reorganisations which effectively made things worse each time, not just for those delivering the service but for those who used the service.  Top down reorganisations usually involve large sums being hosed away by employing yet another expensive firm of consultants to advise the outcome of which is normally a recommendation around enhancing management rather than upping the number of bodies at the coal face. In the case of the council I worked for the provision for those who wanted/needed care services was cut back in terms of breadth of provision and length of provision, fewer of of care doing more limited things. My experience convinces me that any reorganisation has to come from the bottom up. 

[Nearholmer]

Did you miss the ‘<‘ in what I typed?

[Hobby]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

He’s a man, not a god.

 

In our eyes, certainly, but not in his...  

[Hobby]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Did you miss the ‘<‘ in what I typed?

 

Misread as meaning the other way round, have deleted it! 

[Crisis Rail]

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Fine for him to keep publicly schtum. Equally fine for him to be excluded if he doesn’t meet reasonable conditions for entry. He’s a man, not a god.

 

 

 

Might as well sack the whole tournament  off then. It’s only a game after all. 

Yet another loss until we all finally emerge from the Trenches. 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

My experience convinces me that any reorganisation has to come from the bottom up.

‘Root and branch’ doesn’t necessarily imply top-down.

 

But, I am utterly unconvinced that any really searching review can be undertaken solely by those ‘on the inside’, whether they be at the bottom or the top. Reviews of the thoroughness that I am thinking of have to have an independent, outside component, because people on the inside of anything become blind over time to some of the issues. They also have to have an inside component, because nobody from the outside can have a sufficient grasp of the details.

 

I have no idea how best a review would be constituted, but I do know that it would have to have support across the political spectrum, across all internal stakeholders (all the staff, essentially), and across all the users, before, during, and crucially after the review, otherwise it wouldn’t work …… so, how on earth could that be achieved?

[Nearholmer]

7 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

Might as well sack the whole tournament  off then. It’s only a game after all.

That’s right, it is. A game played by people, not gods, and if they won’t deign to follow reasonable rules that apply to all people, they will effectively sack themselves, which is their business.

 

Im sure there are good tennis players around who are modest enough to follow reasonable rules, and that the audience will enjoy watching them play, while the Demi-gods sulk at home.

 

 

[Zero Gravitas]

53 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

 

To sort-of-quote Terry Pratchett “freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences”

 

He’s perfectly at liberty not to take the vaccine. However, he shouldn’t be surprised when this prevents him from doing certain things because the choice he has made is at variance with the rules of where he is going.

 

My employment involved me going to countries where certain vaccinations were mandatory for entry. If I didn’t have them, them they would not let me in.  This is no different, and the fact he is an athlete is completely irrelevant. In fact, if he believes that the vaccine impairs performance, then he’s actually seeking to gain an unfair advantage over those athletes who have chosen to be vaccinated.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

 

In this statement you are quite correct, its his own decision and its private. But not to the extent that he is above the law

 

However if he wants to enter a country where they have set entry conditions (which are backed in law of that country and applies to all visitors)  if he wishes to enter that country he like everyone else has to comply with its conditions. 

 

For far too long some of these personalities/sports people seemingly believe rules are for others, if it was Joe Blogs it would not be a story. Full marks to the Australians for standing up to  those who believe they are above the law 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

U.K. total health spend per capita per annum (so NHS and all the other bits) = c£3300

 

The equivalent figure for the US is = c£7700

 

 

Provocative thought for consideration: the age-band of the population that needs most social care is the age band that holds most static wealth in the form of houses and pension investments.

 

 

With apologies for the edited quote.

Does that include or exclude the volunteer sector?

How much does the volunteer sector contribute?

I have  seen a figure of around 25%.

Any major change to the NHS and how it is funded needs to take into account both the volunteer sector and the private sector if it is to actually come up with a long term solution.

 

Hardly provocative. It was Gordon Brown back in about 2006, when a group of people who had lost money in failed pension funds came out with the comment "They are living in subsidised ex local authority houses worth a few 100 grand, they can sell them."

In the end he had to climb down. Currently Boris needs the grey vote but I think that the younger generation will be after us again soon.

Bernard 

[Oldddudders]

45 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

Might as well sack the whole tournament  off then. It’s only a game after all. 

Quite right. Sport is, at the best of times, an optional irrelevance to real life. In the Covid era it needs to be 'whiter than white' in its observance of the Rules.

 

Oz appears to be the most sport-obsessed nation on earth - and yes - this bloke IS a celeb, because he is good at what he does, and never did such prowess count for more in the superficiality of the media, public and social. But celebs, like royalty, are simply flesh and blood and neither better nor worse than you or me.

 

Sadly, Oz shot itself in the moral foot when it allowed numbers of Hollywood stars to come and make films, while denying its own citizens the right to return home. That will not have helped public opinion there about this overweaning rogue. 

[John M Upton]

Apparently Boris reckons everything will be back to normal in three weeks time according to reports in the press.

 

Deluded or what?

 

I can only presume he is talking about the UK and even then three years is more likely than three weeks and as for some of the poorest furthest flung areas of the planet, decades possibly.

[LNER4479]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

the NHS costs about £2700 per person per year to run;

- about 80% of that is raised through a tax called National Insurance, the rest from other taxes;

 

 

You sure about that? According to several different websites I've just checked, its approx 80% general taxes with approx 20% top up from NI (a tiny proportion is patient-funded, which I assume to be things like prescription charges).

 

I only checked because when I attended my pre-retirement course, the tutor touched on this in terms of how state pension is funded. He pointed out that NI doesn't cover as much as we tend to assume it does; NI covers state pension, job seekers allowance and various other 'benefits' but is not otherwise the de facto primary funding source of the NHS.

 

I guess it doesn't make a huge lot of difference to us as the end users whether the funds are taken from us as NI or income tax, we still fund it during our working lives and hope that it will repay us when we need it, especially in our dotage.

[Nearholmer]

NHS costs £176bn/year. 
 

NI raises £145bn/year.

 

But, you are right, in that NI isn’t anything like wholly devoted to the NHS, although it raises a sum equivalent to c80% of the cost of the NHS.

 

I’ll edit to make clearer.

[hayfield]

6 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Apparently Boris reckons everything will be back to normal in three weeks time according to reports in the press.

 

Deluded or what?

 

I can only presume he is talking about the UK and even then three years is more likely than three weeks and as for some of the poorest furthest flung areas of the planet, decades possibly.

 

Forget Boris or the government for a moment

 

The medical establishment is starting to talk about living with the disease and not having to live with being jabbed every 6 months as this is not sustainable in the long term

 

This latest variant is as hoped whilst very much more virulent less serious in nature, which is as was being for cast some time ago that strains eventually become milder, Europe though is seemingly be hit by a double dose of the more dangerous Delta and omicron one after another. We seemingly suffered earlier with Delta and caught Omicron quicker. London is at the head of the infection and is now on the downward path.

 

Back to normal is not back to the past, social distancing, staying at home when ill, working from home are things we have learnt, the new normal will be different from the old normal. Whilst we are in the thick of a new outbreak, thinks are very different from the first lockdown. Its not stopped us doing much, we already are learning to live with the virus. Perhaps face masks could have been reinstated quicker, certainly in schools and perhaps the new normal will be more self regulation when to and when not to wear mask, or mix in crowded places

 

Back to Boris, I think its a good shout that things will be getting much better in 3 weeks time. Two years ago we saw the beginnings of this pandemic, with many who caught the virus dying. 22 months ago the streets were empty and only essential services were operating. On infections we are seeing hundreds of thousands more, thankfully now the hospitals are less full and the majority of seriously ill are those who are unvaccinated.

 

Whilst I am not quite ready to write a cheque foreign travel is looking more possible, yes we will have to take more care, but that's what we have been doing all my life, taking more care as the years go by    

 

[Dunsignalling]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Currently Boris needs the grey vote but I think that the younger generation will be after us again soon.

Bernard 

And, to be fair, with at least some justification.

 

Preserving the ownership (as opposed to retaining the use) of ones assets while expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab for services that we could finance through equity release etc., has always struck me as deeply regressive.

 

OK, changing that would disadvantage the portion of younger generations who stand to gain from inheritance, but I don't see that as a valid reason for those who don't having to effectively subsidise the process. 

 

John

[hayfield]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

NHS costs £176bn/year. 
 

NI raises £145bn/year.

 

But, you are right, in that NI isn’t anything like wholly devoted to the NHS, although it raises a sum equivalent to c80% of the cost of the NHS.

 

I’ll edit to make clearer.

 

NI was also created to pay pensions  !! now all it is, is a way to generate additional takes, exactly the same as the green levy of fossil fuels  

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

Unfortunately  he refuses to give any details about his COVID status.

 

We like our rules to be very simple - unless  you fit into a very narrow medical exemption window  you must have a current vaccination history to enter the country.  One line, thats it.  Start tinkering around with "he's allowed in cos hes already  had covid" and so on and suddenly every man and his dog, even Johnny Depps  dogs Pistol and Boo would be claiming they were eligible.

 

Look at the mask rules, here its just "You must wear a mask"" and everyone does unless they want to appear on youtube as the next Bunnings Karen.  Compare with the UK - I'm not sure what the exemptions are there but going purely on what I read here they seem so broad that masks look to be  pretty much optional.

 

Now these border rules  might all seem to be irrelevant now that our Federal Government geniuses have decided to pretty much "Let it rip!" and  try to make it so we all catch it, while at the same time making it almost impossible to get a test if we think we've got it in order to ensure we spread it around as much as we are able. Probably they now are irrelevant , but while they are in place there are just two options, follow them or bu99er off!

 

 

 

 

 

According to the news this morning it was only a year ago he said he did not believe in the vaccination……

 

Somehow he now has a medical exemption, well that’s not dodgy at all.

[Nearholmer]

I reckon Boris is right, in the narrow sense that omicron is spreading so rapidly that it will peak, and start to fall quite soon, the numbers are pretty clear on that.

 

The latest ONS random sampling showed that in England c3.2 Million people tested positive in the w/e 31/12/2021, and my back of a fag packet calculation suggests that it will probably peak next week, and be effectively over in the last week of January or first week of February.

 

The pressure on health services will spread longer though, because they will be (are being) hit by staff sickness over the peak, followed immediately after that by the patients who are unfortunate enough to get severely ill during the peak.

 

 

[john new]

2 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

The media make celebs from the top ‘stars’ in any field, he has become a celeb.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

He’s not a celeb. He’s an athlete he is considerably fitter than you and me. it’s his employment. It’s also nobody’s business for anyone as an athlete what unknown he does or doesn’t want to put in his body. 

 

 

A scientifically developed vaccine with approval by multiple health bodies around the world is NOT an 'unknown'

 

There is ZERO REASON to not be vaccinated regardless of occupation / celebrity status - unless you have a genuine MEDICAL reason for being so (and for which substantive proof can reasonably be asked for).

 

Although it is clearly immoral to round up the entire population and physically force them to have the job, it is perfectly moral to significantly restrict the activities the unvaccinated may partake in.

Edited January 6, 2022 by phil-b259

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

A scientifically developed vaccine with approval by multiple health bodies around the world is NOT an 'unknown'

 

There is ZERO REASON to not be vaccinated regardless of occupation / celebrity status - unless you have a genuine MEDICAL reason for being so (and for which substantive proof can reasonably be asked for)

We have been repeatedly asking  one of our nephews - in his late 20s - to get vaccinated but he prefers to listen to social media and his mates and not do so. We heard yesterday that he has tested positive for Covid. Unfortunately that now means that his mother, who he lives with, cannot go to her work as a GP Surgery's receptionist. 

 

 

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, John M Upton said:

Apparently Boris reckons everything will be back to normal in three weeks time according to reports in the press.

 

Deluded or what?

 

I wonder what on earth you've been reading, but this is actually what he said according to the BBC News website:

 

" "In response to the latest data the cabinet agreed this morning that we should stick with Plan B for another three weeks with a further review before the regulations expire on 26 January," he said. "

 

That is nothing like your statement and he clearly isn't as deluded as you like to portray him.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59886078

Edited January 6, 2022 by Hobby

[hayfield]

4 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

I wonder what on earth you've been reading, but this is actually what he said according to they BBC News website:

 

" "In response to the latest data the cabinet agreed this morning that we should stick with Plan B for another three weeks with a further review before the regulations expire on 26 January," he said. "

 

That is nothing like your statement.

 

Par for the course for some of our friends and newspapers who dislike certain parties. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

[Bernard Lamb]

21 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

And, to be fair, with at least some justification.

 

Preserving the ownership (as opposed to retaining the use) of ones assets while expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab for services that we could finance through equity release etc., has always struck me as deeply regressive.

 

OK, changing that would disadvantage the portion of younger generations who stand to gain from inheritance, but I don't see that as a valid reason for those who don't having to effectively subsidise the process. 

 

John

The counter argument is that we emerged from the war and were promised a golden age full of opportunities. We worked hard to get a foot on the property ladder and make a better life for ourselves than was the lot of previous generations. 

The politicians then proceeded to cock things up. When your house increased in value in a year by more than your salary then something was clearly wrong. However it is not my fault for taking advantage of the situation. Why should I or my family be penalised for working hard?

I await with interest to see how Boris is going to "level up".

What was it that Pareto said? You cannot give to somebody without taking away from somebody else.

Ironically  the model railway hobby is very reliant on the spending power of my generation.

They could take over our houses and move us all into workhouses and geriatric hospitals like in the bad old days. Ooops, sorry, they have all been sold off and turned into luxury apartments further fuelling the property boom.

 

 

Bernard