Boris planning to scrap Covid rules completely

Soutra said:
Is that true? How does the government separate positive tests into those who have not had Covid before, and those who have?

Surely someone who tests positive will have further tests until such time as they test negative? The stats show people dying WITH Covid, not dying OF Covid.
Click to expand...
This is the biggest red herring. The dying within 28 days of a positive test metric is there simply because of the admin and having to wait for death certification. Once that admin has been completed there is no material difference in the numbers. Dying with or dying of is irrelevant.

hewielewie said:
I mean COVID numbers in my hospital have reduced and I do know the reasons why services have been impacted and it's a lot more complicated that just COVID.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is. We have a perfect storm of a decade of underfunding and a reckless approach to a pandemic coupled with the 'foreigners' leaving the NHS in droves.

Laughing said:
All NHS frontline workers have to be vaccinated is a broad brush stroke Adi. I think Hep B requires vaccination and in very few cases Hep A. For all diseases screening for antibodies is accepted in place of vaccination.
Click to expand...

We can argue about the minutae of that but it would be futile. Mandatory vaccination already exists.
 
You say minutae I say a very important distinction, Adi. I think it was the doctor talking to javid, his entire point.
 
Laughing said:
You say minutae I say a very important distinction, Adi. I think it was the doctor talking to javid, his entire point.
Click to expand...

Not really. Section 29 of the GMC good practice guide confirms that "You should be immunised against common serious communicable diseases (unless otherwise contraindicated)." and there are still mandatory requirements (depending on where you work in the care chain) around vaccinations. So the fact is that mandatory vaccinations already exist now. There is no material difference between rules that already exist and the new mandatory COVID vaccination policy other than the seriousness of it having increased.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Not really. Section 29 of the GMC good practice guide confirms that "You should be immunised against common serious communicable diseases (unless otherwise contraindicated)." and there are still mandatory requirements (depending on where you work in the care chain) around vaccinations. So the fact is that mandatory vaccinations already exist now. There is no material difference between rules that already exist and the new mandatory COVID vaccination policy other than the seriousness of it having increased.
Click to expand...
There is a difference where screening for antibodies exists. That is not catered for under the proposed legislation for covid. So there is a material difference.
 
Laughing said:
There is a difference where screening for antibodies exists. That is not catered for under the proposed legislation for covid. So there is a material difference.
Click to expand...

Not in relation to certain conditions. Hep B is mandatory for example. Mandatory vaccinations already exist.
 
I am not sure Uwe. I think by spring Johnson may believe he can take that step. He clearly wouldn't do it next week, but by April, the situation is likely to look very different.

We probably should be concentrating on vaccinating the rest of the world to avoid a more vaccine resistant and deadly mutation.
 
Adi_Dem said:
This is the biggest red herring. The dying within 28 days of a positive test metric is there simply because of the admin and having to wait for death certification. Once that admin has been completed there is no material difference in the numbers. Dying with or dying of is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's not really a red herring. The true indicator of the seriousness of the pandemic is the expected death number. However there are people included in the Covid numbers who genuinely didn't die of Covid - like a relation of mine. She was admitted in her late 80s for a major heart op, and died on the operating table. She'd had a positive Covid test but that's certainly not what killed her. I don't know how many people are dying because of Covid. The expected deaths number will tell us, but maybe not for a while yet.
 
Soutra said:
It's not really a red herring. The true indicator of the seriousness of the pandemic is the expected death number. However there are people included in the Covid numbers who genuinely didn't die of Covid - like a relation of mine. She was admitted in her late 80s for a major heart op, and died on the operating table. She'd had a positive Covid test but that's certainly not what killed her. I don't know how many people are dying because of Covid. The expected deaths number will tell us, but maybe not for a while yet.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct. There isn't a material difference between the deaths within 28 days of a positive test number and then the number of deaths where COVID is recorded on the death certificate. It is absolutely a red herring.
 
So realistically based on this, you could go into a hospital and be treat by a doctor who currently has covid but no legal obligation to isolate, but another doctor who declined a vaccine has now been sacked because of this in the interest of public safety?
 
Covid passes and masks in shops are the only real restrictions right now.

I doubt they were having any major impact on Covid case numbers either way.

He's almost certainly doing it to try and distract from his shambles of a government, but I don't think it's particularly the wrong decision.
 
Adi_Dem said:
This isn't correct. There isn't a material difference between the deaths within 28 days of a positive test number and then the number of deaths where COVID is recorded on the death certificate. It is absolutely a red herring.
Click to expand...
I have a graph that shows 2020 divide between with and of covid. On the wrong laptop at the moment so I will post it later. The truth is, it's a very small proportion of people who died with covid rather than of covid.

Doing this from memory, but probably about 5% of deaths were with covid.
 
Laughing said:
I have a graph that shows 2020 divide between with and of covid. On the wrong laptop at the moment so I will post it later. The truth is, it's a very small proportion of people who died with covid rather than of covid.

Doing this from memory, but probably about 5% of deaths were with covid.
Click to expand...

I think you're agreeing with me or have I misread?
 
Laughing said:
I have a graph that shows 2020 divide between with and of covid. On the wrong laptop at the moment so I will post it later. The truth is, it's a very small proportion of people who died with covid rather than of covid.

Doing this from memory, but probably about 5% of deaths were with covid.
Click to expand...
You should also add that people died "of COVID" later than 28 days and are excluded from the total. It isn't a perfect measure (I doubt that there is one) but we have used it consistently throughout the pandemic so it does show the ebb and flow of deaths.
 
Laughing said:
You think taxing someone for exercising autonomy over their bodies is the same as insisting on a seatbelt?
Click to expand...
Yes I think fining people that are choosing not to adhere to laws that have been implemented for public health reasons are the same.

In 1973 they government said that 70% of motorcyclist fatalities involved head injuries, by making it the law to wear a helmet they estimated they'd save the lives of 40% of them.
There were c.800 motorcyclist deaths per annum in the early 70's, so a law was passed to save 224 lives a year.

There are around 100 people a day dying in Greece, which has one of the oldest populations in Europe, & only 2/3s of the over 60's are vaccinated.
I can see why the govt wants to encourage that part of the population to get vaccinated.
 
newusername said:
Yes I think fining people that are choosing not to adhere to laws that have been implemented for public health reasons are the same.

In 1973 they government said that 70% of motorcyclist fatalities involved head injuries, by making it the law to wear a helmet they estimated they'd save the lives of 40% of them.
There were c.800 motorcyclist deaths per annum in the early 70's, so a law was passed to save 224 lives a year.

There are around 100 people a day dying in Greece, which has one of the oldest populations in Europe, & only 2/3s of the over 60's are vaccinated.
I can see why the govt wants to encourage that part of the population to get vaccinated.
Click to expand...
But my question is this. What does financially punishing these people achieve other than topping up bank accounts? If they haven't been vaccinated by now then they more than likely never will be. Granted some may take the jab for fear of financial penalties but I imagine that number will be small. As an extra where does this system stop? Just with covid jabs? Or in extreme circumstances do they implement fines for been over a certain BMI?
 
Randy said:
But my question is this. What does financially punishing these people achieve other than topping up bank accounts? If they haven't been vaccinated by now then they more than likely never will be. Granted some may take the jab for fear of financial penalties but I imagine that number will be small. As an extra where does this system stop? Just with covid jabs? Or in extreme circumstances do they implement fines for been over a certain BMI?
Click to expand...
I don't know.

Govts has been issuing laws & regulations to improve public health since at least the 1800's, so I don't think fining people for choosing not have a vaccine is some sort of Rubicon.
 
The thread title makes total sense to me.

When you are incapable of following rules, the only way to stop being caught out breaking them is to no longer have any rules.

Good thinking by Johnson. He really does put the effort in when it is something that directly affects his ambition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top