Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

What are your thoughts on how government is handling COVID-19

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,596
What do you reckon the outcome would be if this thing broke out in the US first? You think Donald would have declared it a national emergency straight away, locked down the city, and kept all Americans from flying out to the rest of the world?
You don't understand, In China Xi Jinping have the power to do whatever he wants unlike POTUS. In Nov. Americans can fire Trump but the Chinese people can't ever fire Xi.
 
Last edited:

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
20,553


Full text:
On Feb. 5, with fewer than a dozen confirmed novel coronavirus cases in the United States but tens of thousands around the globe, a shouting match broke out in the White House Situation Room between Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and an Office of Management and Budget official, according to three people aware of the outburst.

Azar had asked OMB that morning for $2 billion to buy respirator masks and other supplies for a depleted federal stockpile of emergency medical equipment, according to individuals familiar with the request, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal discussions.

The previously unreported argument turned on the request and on the budget official’s accusation that Azar had improperly lobbied Capitol Hill for money for the repository, which Azar denied, the individuals said.

The $2 billion request from HHS was cut to $500 million when the White House eventually sent Congress a supplemental budget request weeks later. White House budget officials now say the relief package enacted Friday secured $16 billion for the Strategic National Stockpile, more money than HHS had asked for.

The dispute over funding highlights tensions over a repository straining under demands from state officials. States desperate for materials from the stockpile are encountering a beleaguered system beset by years of underfunding, changing lines of authority, confusion over the allocation of supplies and a lack of transparency from the administration, according to interviews with state and federal officials and public health experts.

The stockpile holds masks, drugs, ventilators and other items in secret sites around the country. It has become a source of growing frustration for many state and hospital officials who are having trouble buying — or even locating — crucial equipment on their own to cope with the illness battering the nation.

Despite its name, it was never intended for an emergency that spans the entire nation.

“The response contains enough for multiple emergencies,” said Richard Besser, a former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Now president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, he previously led the CDC’s Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response that oversaw the stockpile during Hurricane Katrina. “Multiple does not mean 50 states plus territories and, within every state, every locality.”

The federal cache has been overwhelmed by urgent requests for masks, respirators, goggles, gloves and gowns in the two months since the first U.S. case of covid-19 was confirmed. Many state officials say they do not understand the standards that determine how much they will receive.

Anecdotally, there are wide differences, and they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines. Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, which has had a serious outbreak in Boston, has received 17 percent of the protective gear it requested, according to state leaders. Maine requested a half-million N95 specialized protective masks and received 25,558 — about 5 percent of what it sought. The shipment delivered to Colorado — 49,000 N95 masks, 115,000 surgical masks and other supplies — would be “enough for only one full day of statewide operations,” Rep. Scott R. Tipton (R-Colo.) told the White House in a letter several days ago.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency inherited control of the stockpile barely a week ago from HHS. Lizzie Litzow, a FEMA spokeswoman, acknowledged the agency maintains a spreadsheet tracking each state’s request and shipments. Litzow declined repeated requests to release the details, saying the numbers are in flux.


Florida has been an exception in its dealings with the stockpile: The state submitted a request on March 11 for 430,000 surgical masks, 180,000 N95 respirators, 82,000 face shields and 238,000 gloves, among other supplies — and received a shipment with everything three days later, according to figures from the state’s Division of Emergency Management. It received an identical shipment on March 23, according to the division, and is awaiting a third.

“The governor has spoken to the president daily, and the entire congressional delegation has been working as one for the betterment of the state of Florida,” said Jared Moskowitz, the emergency management division’s director. “We are leaving no stone unturned.”

President Trump repeatedly has warned states not to complain about how much they are receiving, including Friday during a White House briefing, where he advised Vice President Pence not to call governors who are critical of the administration’s response. “I want them to be appreciative,” he said.

At briefings, Trump and Pence routinely say material is being purchased for the stockpile, supplies are being shipped out and manufacturers under federal contract are ramping up supplies. On Thursday, Pence said the stockpile had shipped 9 million N95 masks and 20 million surgical masks, as well as “millions” of gloves, gowns and face shields.

But Trump and Pence also urge states to buy supplies on their own. During the March 19 briefing, Trump said governors “are supposed to be doing a lot of this work. . . . You know, we’re not a shipping clerk.”

State officials say the advice is unrealistic.

“Allowing the free market to determine availability and pricing is not the way we should be dealing with this national crisis at this time,” said Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D). “This is why we need a nationally led response.”

Leaders in the District, Maryland and Virginia say their requests for aid from the stockpile have come up short. They have been competing with their counterparts to try to buy gear on the open market.
“The federal government has the keys to the front door,” said Nirav Shah, Maine’s state health officer and director of its own Center for Disease Control and Prevention. He said the state has been scouring the country and overseas for companies that can supply protective masks. The stockpile, he said, is a critical “leg of the stool.”

Hospital industry executives agree.

“There is no [protective gear] to be bought on the private market through vendors,” said Kevin Donovan, president of Lakes Regional HealthCare, which has two hospitals in central New Hampshire. “We order but don’t have any money to pay for it,” because companies manufacturing masks and other emergency gear are demanding cash payments on delivery. Donovan said his hospitals, like others, are low on cash because they have canceled the elective procedures that are their moneymakers.

“Unless we start getting material from the national stockpile,” Donovan said, “I don’t know where we are going to get it.”


Severe organizational and financial challenges left the national stockpile unprepared when the novel coronavirus arrived in the United States.

The stockpile program was created at the end of the 1990s in response to terrorist events. The original goal was to be prepared for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. The reserve, for example, was stocked with nerve agent antidotes, stored and maintained at more than 1,300 locations around the country, where they could be accessed quickly.

In the decades since, its mission has widened to include responses to natural disasters and infectious disease threats.

Even with its expanded mission and supplies, the stockpile’s “original design and its current funding do not support responding to a nationwide pandemic disease of this severity,” said Greg Burel, who was the stockpile’s director for a dozen years before he retired in January.

The last time it was deployed on a national basis was during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, when the stockpile distributed 85 million N95 respirators, along with millions of other masks, gowns and gloves. Afterward, trade groups and public health agencies called for the stock of masks to be replenished, but the supplies were not significantly restored, according to health-care industry and public health experts.

Officials at the CDC, which previously oversaw the stockpile, focused their annual budget of roughly $600 million over the past decade purchasing lifesaving drugs and equipment for bioterror and other attacks, rather than equipment vital in a viral pandemic.

In late 2018, the Trump administration transferred responsibility for managing the stockpile from the CDC to a different part of HHS — a controversial move resisted by the CDC that placed the stockpile under the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). According to current and former state and federal officials, the handover was bumpy.

The CDC still oversees clinical guidance to state health departments responding to public health threats, including infectious diseases. But the stockpile’s resources are now under ASPR.

“The transition has been difficult because the left hand is not talking to the right hand,” said one state health official with more than a decade of experience in emergency preparedness, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he needs to maintain relations with ASPR.

HHS officials have sparred for more than a year with White House budget officials over money to buy more stockpile supplies.

In February 2019, the White House was planning for a presidential executive order on preparing for a potential flu pandemic. HHS requested a more than $11 billion investment over 10 years for ASPR, including $2.7 billion for “treatment and control,” according to a document read by a Washington Post reporter that said some of those funds would go toward “better protective devices, manufactured faster.”

But the executive order issued by Trump in September 2019 did not include that money.

In late January, Azar began telling OMB about the need for a supplemental budget request for stockpile supplies — and was rebuffed at a time when the White House did not yet acknowledge any supplemental money would be needed, according to several individuals familiar with the situation who spoke anonymously to discuss internal conversations.

Then came the Feb. 5 argument.

The White House official said that beyond the $500 million, money was reprogrammed within HHS that significantly boosted funds for the stockpile.

The White House official also said that, before the massive relief bill that Trump signed Friday, OMB had urged HHS to ask for more money for the emergency medical supplies.

An OMB spokesperson said Saturday, “Funding has never been a constraint on agency action in coronavirus response. . . . The president has made it clear that the federal government will throw everything we have at this.”

In mid-March, Trump declared the coronavirus outbreak a national emergency. As a result, control of the stockpile shifted again — from HHS to FEMA.

Since then, FEMA’s administrator, Peter Gaynor, has been asked frequently how many supplies have been shipped to states and how allocation decisions are being made.

To a question about masks from ABC News on March 22, Gaynor replied, “Well, I mean, there’s hundreds of, thousands of, millions of things that we’re shipping from the stockpile. I mean, I can’t give you the details about what every single state, of what every single city’s doing.”

State officials and federal lawmakers are demanding to know.

“We don’t know how the federal government is making those decisions,” said Casey Katims, the federal liaison for Washington state, the site of the nation’s first confirmed case on Jan. 21 and of an early deadly cluster at a nursing home.

Since the state made the first of several requests — 233,000 respirators and 200,000 surgical masks — the supplies have been arriving piecemeal and without any explanation of the numbers. The state is now awaiting more, including a plea for 1,000 ventilators, and has been told 500 are en route, Katims said.

The Minnesota congressional delegation wrote on March 22 to Azar, also perplexed: “How is HHS determining which states receive certain medical supplies? When will Minnesota receive the full order of medical supplies that state officials have requested?”

The next day, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), sent a letter to HHS and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA. The letter demanded to know the stockpile’s inventory of protective gear and ventilators, how much has been distributed, how the allocations are being made and how much is on order from manufacturers.
Explanations of the decision-making process have been inconsistent.

Gaynor told the homeland security committee during a conference call, according to Thompson’s letter, that states would be receiving protective gear based on each state’s population and that state needs would be factored in. The letter did not provide further detail.

While the stockpile was still under HHS as the virus began spreading in the United States, the department for the first time used a formula, according to individuals familiar with the system. Under that formula, 25 percent of a state’s requests were fulfilled based on its population and 25 percent on its number of covid-19 cases. The remaining supplies were held back so the stockpile would not be depleted.

These individuals said that, even before FEMA took over, the formula had changed again to put more emphasis on need.

Asked to explain the current process, a statement from FEMA on Wednesday said, “The allocation process of PPE (personal protective equipment) to states is now focused on meeting future demand models where patient levels are expected to strain state and local medical conditions in coming weeks.” Asked which models FEMA is relying on, Litzow said Thursday, “future modeling is mostly based off of data from HHS and CDC that is continually updated as more information about this emerging disease becomes available.”

For the coronavirus outbreak, California has asked for 20 million N95 respirators — more than the stockpile’s entire inventory, estimated at about 12 million.

California has received 358,381 N95 masks and about 1 million surgical masks and face shields, according to the governor’s office. The state is now scouting the global market. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has noted that California is in a better position because its size gives it purchasing leverage.
California officials said they welcomed FEMA’s involvement because they already had a strong working relationship with the agency after months of fighting the state’s catastrophic wildfires.
Minnesota’s manager of public health emergency preparedness, Deborah Radi, said FEMA has been clearer about stockpile deliveries than HHS. She said her state’s first shipment from the stockpile had arrived one night at 1 a.m., when the state’s warehouse to receive it was closed. When FEMA handled a more recent delivery of protective gear, she said, it alerted the state about a delay and then again when the truck was one hour away.

States continue to press their cases with federal officials. They point out the severity of the outbreak in their state, or the vulnerability of their population. As of mid-March, West Virginia had not reported a confirmed case, but it has one of the nation’s oldest populations. It received an initial shipment of slightly more than 1 percent of its request for 160,000 masks — 2,220 N95s.

Trump’s warnings for states not to complain have not subdued Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), who has been particularly outspoken during the crisis. Illinois has received 10 percent of the N95s and surgical masks it has requested from the stockpile.

“I will continue to pound the table to get the federal government to acquire the supplies our states so critically need and allocate them accordingly,” Pritzker tweeted on Tuesday. “Lives depend upon it.”
Aaron C. Davis, Alice Crites, Gregory S. Schneider, Ovetta Wiggins, Darran Simon, Emma Brown and Jeff Stein contributed to this report.

Coincidence that Florida, swing state, gets 100% of medical supplies from the national stockpile, whilst non-swing states get to keep begging and/or try to outbid the federal government?
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,896
Coincidence that Florida, swing state, gets 100% of medical supplies from the national stockpile, whilst non-swing states get to keep begging and/or try to outbid the federal government?
Gee, I wonder if part of the coincidence is also that tRump changed his residency from NY to Florida.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,596
Coincidence that Florida, swing state, gets 100% of medical supplies from the national stockpile, whilst non-swing states get to keep begging and/or try to outbid the federal government?
:rolleyes:...Is Ca. and NY in play for Trump in Nov.? b/c Trump is sending a hospital ship to both state.
 

Karl_K

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
9,513
It is no surprise that Florida received stuff, there were stockpiles in the area for hurricane relief and there are experienced people to deal with the red tape and deliver it.
They also submitted reasonable requests.
Its not some super conspiracy.

Once again again the bureaucrats have it all messed up.
 

CareBear

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,325
Probably not. Donald Trump is not someone I respect nor look to as an example of good leadership and exemplary behavior.

But the wet markets (which mix legal and illegal species) like the one in Wuhan and other places should be illegal. Slaughtering and grilling bats, dogs, rats, crocodiles and snakes, with improper sanitary measures is very dangerous. I would like to see all of it banned everywhere.
I 100% agree with you on the wet markets selling illegal species. They are disgusting and should be banned everywhere.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,124
Once again the US government got it all wrong. Face masks help. Every little bit counts.



Fabric masks do help. You don't need N 95 masks to protect yourself and others. Leave those to the healthcare workers and wear a different type of mask. It does help slow/decrease the spread. We need to all use a mask when going out.
 

MakingTheGrade

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
11,201
Once again the US government got it all wrong. Face masks help. Every little bit counts.



Fabric masks do help. You don't need N 95 masks to protect yourself and others. Leave those to the healthcare workers and wear a different type of mask. It does help slow/decrease the spread. We need to all use a mask when going out.
Yeah I’d really love it if everyone wore a mask! I think if we didn’t have supply shortages then that would have been the recommendation since if everyone wore one it would decrease transmission. I never heard anyone argue that Universal masking wouldn’t help, just that wearing one didn’t really protect the individual (which is likely true but it definitely helps the individual not spread anything). Recommending that only symptomatic and possibly sick people wear them is just creating unfair stigma. :(
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,124
Yeah I’d really love it if everyone wore a mask! I think if we didn’t have supply shortages then that would have been the recommendation since is everyone wore one it would decrease transmission. Recommending that only symptomatic and possibly sick people wear them is just creating unfair stigma. :(
I so wish I had realized this earlier. I just started wearing a mask I think last week. My dh sewed ours from cotton. I listened to the nyc health commissioner urging us not to wear one. When I realized the stupidity of that statement we quickly made some to wear for us and our elderly parents.

Civilians should not take away from healthcare professionals and those on the front lines. Rather a cotton mask or other mask options are good alternatives. As long as there is an N95 shortage. Must leave those for the people on the front lines helping everyone.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,213
Field hospital being built in Central Park.
F876B955-BF1F-4093-8E74-A410FF818BCE.jpeg

And this....
8F1E08CA-9CC3-41E3-87D5-CB0F3DDEC566.jpeg
If I felt ill, the last thing I'd want is to deal with sea-sickness as well :lol: lol
 

Slick1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,141
If I felt ill, the last thing I'd want is to deal with sea-sickness as well :lol: lol
:lol: I concur with this especially given my experiences on the Whale watch boats I've been on... :sick:
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,213
This is worth a read - some informed comment on the Police State implications of the UK legislation that has been hurried through:


David Allen Green said:
The extraordinary legal situation of the Coronavirus lock-down

30th March 2020

There is a public health emergency in England as there is in the rest of the world, and so it is essential that emergency public health laws be in place.

Nothing should gainsay that simple proposition, and nothing in this post should be taken as opposing the imposition of public health law in the current emergency.

That is why emergency public health laws exist.

*

Yet, we should take a moment to reflect the extraordinary legal situation that we are now in.

Three fundamental freedoms – freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of worship – have all been abolished for six months by a statutory instrument which has been neither scrutinised nor voted on by members of parliament.

The freedom to conduct business or be self-employed also has been either severely curtailed or effectively removed by the same means.

Under Regulation 6(1), it is even now a criminal offence to leave your own home, unless (in effect) the police are satisfied you have a reasonable excuse.

The whole country is thereby (in effect) under house arrest.

*

The police, in turn, have been given wide powers to enforce these regulations, including the use of coercive force.

And in turn, again, the police are interpreting these wide powers even more widely, with roadblocks, drones, and a made-up restriction on “essential travel”.

The police are also encouraging people to snitch on each other.

On social media there are accusation and counter-accusation, as neighbours turn on each other.

People are afraid of the police, and increasingly of each other.

*

Those with mental health problems, and those in abusive households, are being made to feel that the law means that they have to stay inside.

This is actually not the case at law.

The Regulations provides scope for leaving the house for such important reasons.

One can hardly dare imagine what is now happening behind closed doors, with vulnerable people believing (wrongly) that the law prevents them escaping.

And one must dread the real consequences of this.

*

And all this is on top of the fact that all electronic means of us communicating each other are – in principle – subject to interception and surveillance laws.

This means that everything being communicated between citizens – is in principle – open to the government to monitor.

*

If it were not for this public health emergency, this situation would be the legal dream of the worst modern tyrant.

Everybody under control, every social movement or association prohibited, every electronic communication subject to surveillance.

This would be an unthinkable legal situation for any free society.

Of course, the public health emergency takes absolute priority.

But we also should not be blind to the costs.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,213
And some commentary on what the Coronavirus bill itself puts in place:


David Allen Green said:
The Coronavirus restrictions on freedom of movement – a guided tour

27th March 2020

This post provides a guided tour of the restrictions on freedom of movement introduced yesterday under emergency coronavirus legislation.

The restrictions were introduced by Regulations, and the Regulations are published here (and in pdf form here).

The Regulations apply to England, and there will be similar provisions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – this guided tour is only of the English provisions.

This post first sets out a summary of the law and then a commentary – I have made this law/commentary distinction so that my comments are not mistaken for an exposition of the law.

And although I usually do not give a disclaimer, I will on this occasion: this post is not legal advice but general guidance.

**

THE LAW

The Legal Framework

The new laws are officially called The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

These Regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

This 1984 Act – which has been heavily amended in the years since its enactment – provides wide powers for the Secretary of State for Health in the event of, among other things, the control of contagious diseases, such as coronavirus.

That the Regulations are made under the 1984 Act is legally significant.

If the Regulations are outside the scope of the 1984 Act then, in principle, the High Court can quash the Regulations, in addition to quashing any direction made under the Regulations by the Health Secretary.

The Regulations also have not had any scrutiny or approval by parliament, and they have been made under the 1984 Act’s emergency procedure (section 45R) – this means that parliament has to now approve the Regulations within 28 days.

The Regulations had immediate effect, as of 1pm yesterday, 26th March 2020.

The Regulations are for the statutory purpose of “preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination” (section 45C(1) of the 1984 Act).

(The Regulations are also under those provisions of the 1984 Act that expressly allow the Health Secretary to make regulations by statutory instrument (section 45P of the 1984 Act) and to create criminal offences and to make and enforce restrictions and to impose requirements (sections 45C(3)(c) and (d) and 45F(2) of the 1984 Act).)

The 1984 Act allows – and is intended to allow – the Health Secretary wide powers to deal with a public health emergency – but the powers must only be used in respect of that emergency.

(And please note the Regulations are made by the Health Secretary under public health legislation – and not by the Home Secretary, despite her claim yesterday).

*

Duration

On the assumption that the Regulations get parliamentary approval within 28 days, the long-stop date for their expiry is in six months’ time (Regulation 12).

The Regulations are intended to last as long as the “emergency period” (Regulation 3(1)) that is deemed to have started yesterday (26th March 2020) and it is the Health Secretary who decides when that ends .

The Health Secretary, however, is obliged to keep the need for the restrictions and requirements under review at least every 21 days, with the first review being carried out on 16 April (Regulation 3(2)).

If the Health Secretary considers any restrictions or requirements are no longer needed, then that restriction or requirement can be terminated (Regulation 3(3)).

*

The Prohibition on Freedom of Movement

The primary prohibition on freedom of movement is under Regulation 6.

Regulation 6(1) provides the general prohibition that during the emergency period “no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse”.

The only exception to this general prohibition is, in any circumstances, that you have a “reasonable excuse”.

The term “reasonable excuse” is not defined, but there is a non-exhaustive list of thirteen examples.

Each of these listed examples is subject to a test of necessity (because of the word “need” at the head of the regulation) – and this probably means that any other reasonable excuse would also have to be necessary.

There is no express limit on how often any of these excuses may be used on any day (contrary to the Prime Minister’s earlier statement that exercise or essential shops will be limited to once a day) – though frequency would be part of the twin tests of reasonableness and necessity.

Some of the excuses are vague.

For example, the excuse of “exercise” (Regulation 6(2)(b)) does not define what this general term means.

The excuse of obtaining necessities (Regulation 6(2)(a)) does not explain what is meant by “basic necessities” as opposed to “necessities” (and perhaps the person drafting this provision had the Jungle Book song in their head).

The same excuse also uses the tautology of “need…to obtain…necessities” which perhaps indicates the rushed speed of the drafting process.

There are however some welcome provisions.

Regulation 6(2)(m) provides that it is a reasonable excuse to “avoid injury or illness or to escape the risk of harm”.

This is a low threshold – you do not need to show you are escaping harm, just the risk of it.

And there is no reason why Regulation 6(2)(m) should not apply to mental illness or risk of harm, which means it can be relied on by those needing to leave where they live for mental health reasons.

It will be for you, however, to show that you have a reasonable excuse and a failure to do so will mean you are committing a criminal offence.

(Note this general prohibition expressly does not apply to the “homeless” (Regulation 6(4)), although homeless is not a defined term.)



*

The Criminal Offences

If you breach the prohibition then you will be committing a criminal offence (Regulation 9(1)).

There are also offences of obstruction and of contravening directions Regulation 9(2) and (3).

The punishment for these offences will be a fine at the magistrates’ court Regulation 9(4).

In essence: if you breach the prohibition – either without any excuse or if your excuse fails the twin tests of necessity and reasonableness – then, in principle, you will receive a criminal conviction and a criminal record.

*

The severity of the potential criminal sanctions is mitigated to an extent by a regime of Fixed Penalty Notices under Regulation 10.

It is important to note that these Notices only “may” be issued – there is no obligation that you would be offered the opportunity of a Notice instead of a prosecution.

If a Notice is issued then you can avoid any potential criminal liability by payment of a fine of £60 (or £30 if paid in 14 days).

If you are accused by a police officer of breaching the prohibition and you believe this accusation is unfair then you face the dilemma of either paying the fine or, as the police like to put it, “having your day in court”.

It is not yet clear whether payment of these fines, or the issue of Notices, would be on any extended criminal records check.

These Notices thereby place considerable practical discretion and power in the hands of police officers (which also include here community support police officers).

*

Coercion

The prohibition can also be enforced by the police by directing or removing a person to the place where they live (Regulation 8(3)).

In removing a person, the police are expressly allowed to use “reasonable force” (Regulation 8(4)).

**

COMMENTARY

These provisions – which are alongside prohibitions on freedom of assembly, freedom of worship and freedom to conduct business – are the most illiberal laws imposed in England since at least the second world war.

The laws have not had any parliamentary debate or approval, they impose a form of (in effect) house arrest, create wide offences, and they hand immense power to police officers.

All this is justified – there is a public health emergency, and the powers under the 1984 Act exist for just this sort of emergency.

The main problem is that the illiberal provisions are subject to vague exceptions, and this is a worrying combination at a time of an emergency.

This problem is mitigated but not eliminated by the Fixed Penalty Regime, when the police choose to use it.

And it is a relief that the Regulations as a whole (and ministerial directions made under them) are subject to potential challenge at the High Court.

But in practical terms, there is considerable scope for these provisions to be misused by police officers, with almost no practical safeguards.

Measures like this, in addition to being tough, need to be credible.

Misuse of these emergency powers will make the regime less credible, thereby undermining the very public health purpose that the Regulations are there to achieve.

Just as it takes one person being idiotic to spread this disease, it takes only one police officer being idiotic to discredit this emergency public health regime.

There needs to be self-restraint on all sides
 

lyra

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
4,922
I'm starting to feel like the whole world has a 2 tier system right now. All the really wealthy people got tested quickly, and had the fanciest n95 masks (Gwyneth Paltrow and other celebs). I'm betting that people who can afford it also have doctors and ventilators on call or at home.

I kind of feel like most of the rest of us are just collateral damage. Certainly my age group 55+ are made to feel like we're expendable. When I see gov'ts not doing true lockdowns, or promising lifts soon, I have to wonder if they've just agreed that at some point, they need to let everyone have a chance at catching the virus, counting on 88% survivability. Maybe that's the way it should be too, I wouldn't know. /conspiracy theory from 21 days in complete isolation (maybe I AM getting loopy?)
 

Lilith112

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
599
I'm starting to feel like the whole world has a 2 tier system right now. All the really wealthy people got tested quickly, and had the fanciest n95 masks (Gwyneth Paltrow and other celebs). I'm betting that people who can afford it also have doctors and ventilators on call or at home.
No, this pandemic is both infuriating and also harshly highlighting just how much money/access directly impacts our lives. I mean, I'm sure we're all aware of it to a degree, but it's kind of nauseating seeing how easily celebrities can get tested while healthcare workers and other essential personnel are basically told "lol, u actually thought we'll protect you?" Nvm that this pandemic has illustrated just how NON-ESSENTIAL 99% of celebrities are even though they get paid millions.
 

kipari

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
2,047
I'm starting to feel like the whole world has a 2 tier system right now. All the really wealthy people got tested quickly, and had the fanciest n95 masks (Gwyneth Paltrow and other celebs). I'm betting that people who can afford it also have doctors and ventilators on call or at home.
Yes, this struck me too... In Germany the system is generally more egalitarian than in the US, but I had the same feeling. Celebrities without any symptoms at all getting their hands on tests. It sounded like a status symbol to me " Look I'm so important, I got tested even If I have no symptoms " - Apalling


QUOTE="lyra, post: 4708448, member: 25613"]

I kind of feel like most of the rest of us are just collateral damage. Certainly my age group 55+ are made to feel like we're expendable. When I see gov'ts not doing true lockdowns, or promising lifts soon, I have to wonder if they've just agreed that at some point, they need to let everyone have a chance at catching the virus, counting on 88% survivability. Maybe that's the way it should be too, I wouldn't know. /conspiracy theory from 21 days in complete isolation (maybe I AM getting loopy?)
[/QUOTE]

I'm seeing this and I don't want to live in a society like that. It starts with the inconsiderate party goes (I'm not old, I don't care) and goes up to the president who's afraid of his hotels so much that he wants full churches on Easter.

Good thing not everyone is like that.

Nobody is expendable. I'm sorry if you feel like that.
 

MakingTheGrade

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
11,201
So in the last week Trump has accused healthcare workers of being responsible for PPE shortages, continues to lie about test availability, suggests letting people die for the economy and now .... pillow advertisement and religious lecturing?

13E8A4D2-6C1B-41F5-AE83-F304FD0D52CC.jpeg
 

kipari

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
2,047
@MakingTheGrade I share your anger

His approval rates still go up. I don't get it.... it's absolutely evident that he's not handling this crisis as he should. Still people are OK with this... I'm puzzled :confused:
The rest of the world is quite worried for America right now. Italy was ranked no.2 in a WHO healthcare ranking (that one had a focus on equality and accessability together with excellence) that ranked America in the lower thirties. The overall graph is alarming.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
562
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the Trump voters who did so in anger at Obama for saying incorrectly that under the ACA if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, but don't seem to give a shit that the Trump administration is willing to kill their doctor. SMH.
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,007
The government doesn't manufacture masks, ventilators, or anything else. They also don't order these things for hospitals unless it's the VA. No one was prepared for this. No one. If regulations are getting in the way of manufacturing then that is your government at work, long before Trump. He talks like an idiot and there will be things that our government screwed up but all the Trump hate for every little problem is totally irrational. And your talk of Trump voters is par for the course in HO these days. IMO HO looks like it's an intolerant liberal Trump hating hen party/kaffeeklatsch complete with Mother Superiors who rap the knuckles of any diversity of thought. I realize not everyone is like this but from another POV this is what it looks like. And people have a nerve telling me I'm not helpful.

There will be plenty to criticize when this is over.
I’m reading this a little late but I must comment on this. Trump received warning of this virus in January and in February and he disregarded it. When it hit in Italy, he should have taken it seriously! He should have gotten PPE and test kits ready for the people of this nation.

There is no margin of error for the president. He is expected to know when to get prepared. He isn’t some guy in our society who can screw up for himself and die or not die because of his terrible decision. Trump has the lives of millions of people on his hands.

No, no one could be prepared after the fact, but Trump had warning and he chose to ignore it. People are dying because he made that choice. Doctors and nurses will die because of that choice.

I think we should stop making excuses for him and start seeing his arrogance and incompetence and a real liability to human life.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
34,124
I’m reading this a little late but I must comment on this. Trump received warning of this virus in January and in February and he disregarded it. When it hit in Italy, he should have taken it seriously! He should have gotten PPE and test kits ready for the people of this nation.

There is no margin of error for the president. He is expected to know when to get prepared. He isn’t some guy in our society who can screw up for himself and die or not die because of his terrible decision. Trump has the lives of millions of people on his hands.

No, no one could be prepared after the fact, but Trump had warning and he chose to ignore it. People are dying because he made that choice. Doctors and nurses will die because of that choice.

I think we should stop making excuses for him and start seeing his arrogance and incompetence and a real liability to human life.
Things went wrong down the line. Trump and a lot of others in the government dropped the ball here. And it will cost/has cost many many lives. That price is too high a price and such incompetence or outright denial is criminal IMO.

The way we can show our displeasure is by voting him out and hopefully voting in a more competent and compassionate individual.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,203
As I'm sitting here during my lunch hour, I looked into the closed case statistics again.

South Korea 2.9% death, 97.1% recovery
China 4.2% death, 95.8% recovery
Germany 4.6% death, 95.4% recovery
Australia 6.5% death, 93.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Canada 7.5% death, 92.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Japan 11.7% death, 88.3% recovery
Switzerland 16.5% death, 83.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Iran 16.5% death, 83.5% recovery
Belgium 25.2% death, 74.8% recovery (improved statistics)
France 27.6% death, 72.4% recovery
Spain 31.6% death, 68.4% recovery (improved statistics)
USA 36.5% death, 63.5% recovery (slight improvement)
Italy 44.2% death, 55.8% recovery
Netherlands 77.6% death, 22.4% recovery (improved statistics)
UK 91.3% death, 8.7% recovery (worsened statistics)

Many countries have improved their recovery rate, but the UK is the one glaring exception where the statistics look worse after they increased testing. Any comparison to improved or worsened is relative to my calculation last week (March 25).

I want to commend whatever the governments of Australia and Canada are doing. Statistics in those countries, and in Asia and Germany, are stable. I believe the US can only improve from here, but what's going on with the UK worries me. Yesterday I read about how the police are restricting non-essential travel, and today I see this chart.
1585682591905.png
 

CareBear

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
1,325
@voce I think UK and Netherlands were the two countries going for 'herd immunity' and last to lock down. Good friends of ours live in the Netherlands and a few weeks ago their daughter's school had a parent who tested positive. They disinfected the school and resumed classes two days later. Thankfully, they have shutdown schools now.
 
Last edited:

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,213
As I'm sitting here during my lunch hour, I looked into the closed case statistics again.

South Korea 2.9% death, 97.1% recovery
China 4.2% death, 95.8% recovery
Germany 4.6% death, 95.4% recovery
Australia 6.5% death, 93.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Canada 7.5% death, 92.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Japan 11.7% death, 88.3% recovery
Switzerland 16.5% death, 83.5% recovery (improved statistics)
Iran 16.5% death, 83.5% recovery
Belgium 25.2% death, 74.8% recovery (improved statistics)
France 27.6% death, 72.4% recovery
Spain 31.6% death, 68.4% recovery (improved statistics)
USA 36.5% death, 63.5% recovery (slight improvement)
Italy 44.2% death, 55.8% recovery
Netherlands 77.6% death, 22.4% recovery (improved statistics)
UK 91.3% death, 8.7% recovery (worsened statistics)

Many countries have improved their recovery rate, but the UK is the one glaring exception where the statistics look worse after they increased testing. Any comparison to improved or worsened is relative to my calculation last week (March 25).

I want to commend whatever the governments of Australia and Canada are doing. Statistics in those countries, and in Asia and Germany, are stable. I believe the US can only improve from here, but what's going on with the UK worries me. Yesterday I read about how the police are restricting non-essential travel, and today I see this chart.
1585682591905.png
I think something is 'not right' with that UK statistic - recorded cases to recorded deaths with/from (TBC...) Covid19 suggest about 7% of recorded cases have death as the outcome:


As of 9am on 31 March 2020, a total of 143,186 people have been tested, of which 25,150 were confirmed positive.

As of 5pm on 30 March 2020, of those hospitalised in the UK, 1,789 have died.

The figures for test results and for deaths are compiled from different sources. This is why the figures for deaths are reported from an earlier point in time than the figures for test results.
1789/25150 = 7.1%

I don't believe the UK is testing for recovered individuals as yet, which would be a reason for a very low number of 'recoveries' recorded.

(And those figures won't include those who've had it and not realised.)
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,203
I think something is 'not right' with that UK statistic - recorded cases to recorded deaths with/from (TBC...) Covid19 suggest about 7% of recorded cases have death as the outcome:




1789/25150 = 7.1%

I don't believe the UK is testing for recovered individuals as yet, which would be a reason for a very low number of 'recoveries' recorded.

(And those figures won't include those who've had it and not realised.)
The 25,150 number is total cases. I have stated many times the total cases underestimates the death rate because at the current stage many new cases are diagnosed that are still at the earlier stages where no one YET dies, skewing the serious or critical rate and the death rate too low.

As we've seen from China and South Korea, where they have the new infection rate under control, about 20% of people experience serious or critical symptoms requiring treatment in the later stages of the disease.

I mentioned I'm only looking at the closed cases, which is 1,924, and not the total cases 23,226 active + 1,924 closed = 25,150 total. As long as the serious or critical percentage among the active cases is much lower than 20%, that means the majority of the cases are in the earlier stages, and dividing the deaths by the total number does not result in a useful and accurate statistical heuristic.

1585685419455.png

P.S. It could well be that they're not tracking the recoveries accurately. But after you've been seriously sick, you don't need to be given the test to know whether you've recovered.
 

OoohShiny

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
7,213
That is interesting - I'm interested to see how things progress.
 

OboeGal

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
539
The 25,150 number is total cases. I have stated many times the total cases underestimates the death rate because at the current stage many new cases are diagnosed that are still at the earlier stages where no one YET dies, skewing the serious or critical rate and the death rate too low.

As we've seen from China and South Korea, where they have the new infection rate under control, about 20% of people experience serious or critical symptoms requiring treatment in the later stages of the disease.

I mentioned I'm only looking at the closed cases, which is 1,924, and not the total cases 23,226 active + 1,924 closed = 25,150 total. As long as the serious or critical percentage among the active cases is much lower than 20%, that means the majority of the cases are in the earlier stages, and dividing the deaths by the total number does not result in a useful and accurate statistical heuristic.

1585685419455.png

P.S. It could well be that they're not tracking the recoveries accurately. But after you've been seriously sick, you don't need to be given the test to know whether you've recovered.
I agree with you that the only way to get accurate statistics on death rate is to look at the outcome of closed cases. I think a lot of places were tracking that at the beginning, but that has gone to the wayside. Also, as hospitals are having to turn away more people with mild to moderate cases in order to handle the sickest, ones who decompensate rapidly at home and pass there don't end up counted as either an active case (as they weren't tested) or a death. The ones who don't decompensate at home and recover don't get counted at all most times, as most aren't tested. Individuals and the people around them know who died or recovered, but anyone involved in tracking/reporting stats doesn't. Then there are the people who die in hospital, but the deaths aren't attributed to C-19 because they were only tested once and got a negative, but medical personnel are finding that negative results of the test are only 50-75% accurate at best, and there aren't enough tests to do a second test on most of those people at autopsy. So........with so much chaos, I have grave doubts we'll have quality statistics with which to draw remotely accurate conclusions anytime soon......if ever.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Handmade diamond studs
    Handmade diamond studs
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top