UK Politics - We Don’t Want to See Your Papers, Please

[mormont]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's the crux of the power imbalance inherent in a lot of zero hour regulations. Employers will tend to treat zero hour contracts as obligatory on the employee when the employer decides they need the worker to come in, whereas the worker has no capacity to oblige the employer to provide hours that suit their situation. The law might not allow employers to behave in that way, but audit, enforcement and complaints systems are often lacking or absent to ensure the regulations are implemented as advertised. Employers will also begrudge workers who have several zero hour arrangements, because that will mean the worker is potentially unavailable when the employer wants them. These sorts of regulations are typically implemented with rhetoric about how good employers will behave, and how bad employees are abusing current systems. But the rhetoric rarely considers how bad employers will abuse good workers. And there are a lot of bad employers out there, including big multinationals.

Much of this is true, but the solution is not to 'ban' zero hours contracts. It's to improve employee's access to employment tribunals, for example, and to grant protection from unfair dismissal from day one for all reasons, not just those relating to protected characteristics. Of course, the current government have gone or tried to go in the opposite direction on both these points.

Some new legal regulation might help too, but the problem here isn't the existence of zero hours contracts as such: it's that employers are able to ignore or abuse employee rights in general and it's too hard for employees to do anything about that. In principle, employees on zero hours contracts already have a good deal of protection - rights to ask for suitable shifts, to refuse work without losing their job, etc. - but they have few options to enforce it.

[DaveSumm]

There could be a large jump in the number of Covid hospital admissions in England if restrictions are not tightened, government scientists say.

Quote

.The Sage committee said its modelling suggested hospitalisations could reach 2,000 to 7,000 per day next month - currently there are just over 750.

I have to say, I really don’t understand where a potential 7000 admissions would come from? Positive cases have been down all this week compared to the same day last week, despite an expected rise from schools. OK, maybe that needs a little longer to filter through. And hospital admissions are creeping upwards, but certainly not exponentially. It’s difficult to see how things could get nearly ten times as bad in a month?

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

There could be a large jump in the number of Covid hospital admissions in England if restrictions are not tightened, government scientists say.

I have to say, I really don’t understand where a potential 7000 admissions would come from? Positive cases have been down all this week compared to the same day last week, despite an expected rise from schools. OK, maybe that needs a little longer to filter through. And hospital admissions are creeping upwards, but certainly not exponentially. It’s difficult to see how things could get nearly ten times as bad in a month?

Sage models seem to come in a wide variety of ranges and 7000 from what I saw was the more extreme end, thnk 2000 was the lower end.

Their modelling is also pretty much always on the pessimistic side and is there in some way to make sure the government don't get too complacent. 

Having said that, its just noticable from the new story what angle is being pushed here, trying to keep everyone on edge and not to lose focus. This is really all public service broadcasting stuff.

[Spockydog]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care:

Tory voters, you are to be congratulated. That we have such a serious, intellectual titan in charge of our Covid response is nothing short of a miracle. Blessed, we are. Blessed! You must be very proud.

 

 

[Raja]

6 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

I have to say, I really don’t understand where a potential 7000 admissions would come from?

You could read the SAGE papers and you would then have a better idea, as they specifically outline in what situation it might be 7000. It's always a good idea to read the primary sources of information as opposed to an article that summarizes.

'Difficult to see' and 'I don't understand' when you haven't spent any time actually reading the information in question is a bit odd ( spoiler alert, they say 7000 is highly unlikely and also lay out the specific scenarios where it might occur)

Edit: Sorry, my above comment is a bit harsh but the paper is linked in the article provided!

[Spockydog]

15 minutes ago, Raja said:

Edit: Sorry, my above comment is a bit harsh but the paper is linked in the article provided!

 

Don't apologise. Far too many people have been making Covid proclamations from a position of ignorance.

[DaveSumm]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

You could read the SAGE papers and you would then have a better idea, as they specifically outline in what situation it might be 7000. It's always a good idea to read the primary sources of information as opposed to an article that summarizes.

'Difficult to see' and 'I don't understand' when you haven't spent any time actually reading the information in question is a bit odd ( spoiler alert, they say 7000 is highly unlikely and also lay out the specific scenarios where it might occur)

Edit: Sorry, my above comment is a bit harsh but the paper is linked in the article provided!

OK…

I did glance at the actual paper, didn’t read it in full. You’ve mixed up the outcomes though; the crazy R=2 that goes way off the graph is deemed ‘highly unlikely’, the R=1.5 scenario is where the graph hits 7000, of which they say:

Quote

The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months.

They mention schools, which I already covered: we were already expecting some uptick from that but it hasn’t shown. So based on more recent data that isn’t factored in to their modelling (up to September 6th I think), yes, I find it difficult to see how we could reach 7000 hospitalisations a day.

So to go over the thread etiquette; if it’s not pro-Lockdown or anti-Tory, no linking news stories unless you’ve read every subsequent link in full, but doom and gloom and anti-Tory, any old shit you think up on the fly and fancy dumping here is fine. Gotcha.

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care:

Tory voters, you are to be congratulated. That we have such a serious, intellectual titan in charge of our Covid response is nothing short of a miracle. Blessed, we are. Blessed! You must be very proud.

It is impressive how you can have a terrible Health Secretary and then replace them with someone considerably worse.

To whit, Johnson removing Raab as Foreign Secretary is a great move, but even given the thin scrapings available from the bottom of the barrel, replacing him with Liz Truss seems like trolling.

The messaging on the COVID restrictions is interesting. We were told last week that a firebreak 7-day lockdown over the half-term holiday in a month was definitely not happening, which means there is around a 50% chance of it happening and, more germanely, the idea has been raised at some point. With the stick leaked, they're now talking about the carrot of simply reinstating mask requirements for shops and public transport, and getting people to work from home again.

Given the relatively modest rises in cases and deaths - at least compared to the previous peaks - a full-scale lockdown for weeks or months is impossible to sell (and a brief firebreak still difficult to sell), but there is the risk of not doing anything and going past 200 and then 300 deaths a day in the coming weeks when very mild measures could start bringing cases and deaths down again, as we saw in the summer.

[DaveSumm]

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

(and a brief firebreak still difficult to sell)

The only selling point about this type of lockdown is our new ability to plan ahead. Considering we’ve had changes to restrictions sprung on us with 24 hours notice in the past, the fact that cases won’t suddenly spiral out of control exponentially buys us the ability to schedule lockdowns. If the government said ‘hey next month, we’ll all have the week off, furlough temporarily reinstated, then back to normal the following week’ it might be a bit easier to swallow.

I don’t think it’ll happen, but if hospitalisations did look to overwhelm us then it could be viable.

[Hereward]

Nadine Dorries is a Cabinet minster? Nadine Dorries? I mean… Nadine Dorries, that can’t possibly be true, can it? Nadine. Dorries. I could cry. 

[BigFatCoward]

40 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It is impressive how you can have a terrible Health Secretary and then replace them with someone considerably worse.

To whit, Johnson removing Raab as Foreign Secretary is a great move, but even given the thin scrapings available from the bottom of the barrel, replacing him with Liz Truss seems like trolling.

The messaging on the COVID restrictions is interesting. We were told last week that a firebreak 7-day lockdown over the half-term holiday in a month was definitely not happening, which means there is around a 50% chance of it happening and, more germanely, the idea has been raised at some point. With the stick leaked, they're now talking about the carrot of simply reinstating mask requirements for shops and public transport, and getting people to work from home again.

Given the relatively modest rises in cases and deaths - at least compared to the previous peaks - a full-scale lockdown for weeks or months is impossible to sell (and a brief firebreak still difficult to sell), but there is the risk of not doing anything and going past 200 and then 300 deaths a day in the coming weeks when very mild measures could start bringing cases and deaths down again, as we saw in the summer.

The rate for double vaccinated is about 1.5 a day. I am very much past caring about anybody who makes bad choices anymore. 

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The rate for double vaccinated is about 1.5 a day. I am very much past caring about anybody who makes bad choices anymore. 

One of the more shocking stats, although not shocking as this was warned about in January is that 30% of those over 50 who are black have not been vaccinated vs just 6% white. Thats quite incredible.

More needed to be done to address this problem that had been known about for a while. I know they tried to get celebrities involved and stuff but there should have been a much stronger push and thought about how to convince people to trust in the vaccines.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

OK…

I did glance at the actual paper, didn’t read it in full. You’ve mixed up the outcomes though

You are correct. My bad. However, I still do not think you've read it fully. You say this

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

They mention schools, which I already covered: we were already expecting some uptick from that but it hasn’t shown. So based on more recent data that isn’t factored in to their modelling (up to September 6th I think)

The SAGE paper states this on schools

Quote

It will take a further three to four weeks for the full impacts of likely forthcoming changes in behaviour to be reflected in the data, such as the return of schools in England and any reduction in working from home.

In addition, regarding why we might see more hospitalizations, they cite the following, which you haven't mentioned at all.

Quote

There is a clear consensus that continued high levels of homeworking has played a very important role in preventing sustained epidemic growth in recent months. It is highly likely that a significant decrease in homeworking in the next few months would result in a rapid increase in hospital admissions.

I'm not sure if they will go up to 7,000, and neither are SAGE and that's why there are a *range* of options given, but we're at 990 admissions per day with the 7 day average, so I don't think getting to 2000+ a day for a sustained period of time is outside the realm of possibility, and this could be more if you read the factors that the SAGE paper has highlighted ( I could post that but it's a lot and all found within the link) - admissions at that level would be alarming given that we are already at a point where operations are being cancelled in hospitals ( Link 1, Link 2)

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

no linking news stories unless you’ve read every subsequent link in full

No, but I think the SAGE paper, the primary document the article is based on, has plenty in it to give you insights as to why the 7000 figure was there. I also think it's important to recognize the uncertainty within that document where they highlight that various factors could have significant impacts on where we go from here, but to me, the more important thing is the 'light' measures they suggest, which I think are sensible.

Quote

Enacted early enough, a relatively light set of measures could be likely be sufficient to curb sustained but slow growth. As well as encouraging home working, more light touch measures could include clear messaging that recommends people acting cautiously, more widespread testing, a return to requiring all contacts of cases to isolate, and more mask-wearing.

We should be doing all of those things right now, but we're not because it's this government.

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

if it’s not pro-Lockdown or anti-Tory, but doom and gloom and anti-Tory, any old shit you think up on the fly and fancy dumping here is fine. Gotcha.

You've DMed me to say that this paragraph is not about me, then why are you saying it to me?

The reason I commented on this particular story is because I work in A&E and see the pressures we deal with every day - all the links I have provided are from government documents or news articles about hospitals facing pressures. In addition, my previous post in the summer stated that we shouldn't go back into the kind of lockdown we had over xmas, but that we should still be taking a cautious approach with clear messaging ( which we haven't) but apparently that's all 'doom & gloom' and 'pro lockdown' - for what it is worth, I think it is a lot more complicated that pro lock-down or anti lock-down right now and for the past few months.

[DaveSumm]

5 minutes ago, Raja said:

You've DMed me to say that this paragraph is not about me, then why are you saying it to me?

In addition, my previous post in the summer stated that we shouldn't go back into the kind of lockdown we had over xmas, but that we should still be taking a cautious approach with clear messaging ( which we haven't) but apparently that's all 'doom & gloom' and 'pro lockdown'.

I didn’t read the whole paper, so you have some valid points. And your first post, coupled with you acknowledging it was a little harsh and saying sorry, was fair. But then having someone retract your apology as if the standard post quality here is higher than my original ‘link to a BBC article with a comment’ kinda ticked me off. Had I posted in concern of the 7000 figure instead of sceptical, it never would’ve elicited the same response.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Currently in Ribby Hall near Blackpool (northern England for the non-UK people), and everyone seems to be of the belief it’s all over. Signs request people wear masks but few do. Ribby Hall is a holiday ‘village’ which has people from all over the UK staying, but while it has the remnants of covid precautions (signs asking people to mask, Antibacterial dispensors long empty), there’s little effort made. The restaurant staff still mask.

Big difference from Scotland where most still mask and it’s still required.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

Nadine Dorries is a Cabinet minster? Nadine Dorries? I mean… Nadine Dorries, that can’t possibly be true, can it? Nadine. Dorries. I could cry. 

You can see Johnson's thought processes here. 'Hum, we're supposed to be appealing to the proles. Nadine's been on I'm A Celebrity. Minister for Culture. Genius, Boris, you've done it again! Non ducor duco and all that. Now, Foreign Office...'

[Derfel Cadarn]

I see Gove is in charge of ‘Union affairs’ ie thwarting Scottish independence. So if Scotland leaves, Johnson’s biggest rival can be blamed and not capitalise on it in a potential leadership bid, I assume

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I see Gove is in charge of ‘Union affairs’ ie thwarting Scottish independence. So if Scotland leaves, Johnson’s biggest rival can be blamed and not capitalise on it in a potential leadership bid, I assume

Possibly, if Johnson believes he can convincing claim victory if an independence vote is lost. That would risk strengthening Gove's position, though, which for the last year or so has been very low-key compared to his previous profile.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

It is impressive how you can have a terrible Health Secretary and then replace them with someone considerably worse.

To whit, Johnson removing Raab as Foreign Secretary is a great move, but even given the thin scrapings available from the bottom of the barrel, replacing him with Liz Truss seems like trolling.

 

I've heard it said that Liz Truss is one of the most liked cabinet ministers at the moment. But I have also heard it said that this is because she is one of the few who can actually claim to have achieved anything positive with Brexit with these trade deal announcements, even if they are not particularly good trade deals, the vast majority of people are not going to look into or listen to the details, and it;s just the headline that matters.

it will be interesting to see how her popularity goes when she isn't in a post that comes with some auto-win headlines.

As to the issue of rolling out celebrities from minority communities to try to promote vaccination, it seems like a zero sum game and just feeding into more culture wars when celebs from the same communities tweet false claims that reach 10s of millions of people about their cousin's friend getting swollen 'nads and wedding cancellation all because of the COVID vaccine.

[Spockydog]

21 hours ago, Hereward said:

Nadine Dorries is a Cabinet minster? Nadine Dorries? I mean… Nadine Dorries, that can’t possibly be true, can it? Nadine. Dorries. I could cry. 

My message to anyone who voted for these clowns.

Suck. It. Up.

You did this. You voted for these criminals and incompetents, so you don't get to whinge and whine when shit like this happens. Especially as you'll probably just vote for them again in a couple of years time.