Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
jrs

Covid-19 Are we being told the truth ?

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

4. Should the measures taken to protect them be voluntary or legally enforceable? If they are to be legally enforceable how do you frame a law to realistically say , for example, anyone aged 64 years and 364 days is ok but on your 65th birthday you self isolate ? 

The law already forces people to self-isolate in certain circumstances, and indeed imposes significant and blanket restrictions on the whole UK population. Is this fair, reasonable or proportionate to the problem that is trying to be solved - punishing everyone and destroying their livelihoods to protect a certain (largely retired) population?

As with anything, there has to be a defined cut-off point. Is an 18-year-old any more responsible than one that's 17 years 364 days old? Yet that one day invests significant rights and responsibilities in law.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, E I Addio said:

Just to be clear :

1. How precisely do you define the vulnerable ?

2. How do you identify them

3. Precisely what measures should be taken to protect them

4. Should the measures taken to protect them be voluntary or legally enforceable? If they are to be legally enforceable how do you frame a law to realistically say , for example, anyone aged 64 years and 364 days is ok but on your 65th birthday you self isolate ? 

5.Since we have only had a vaccine a few , months, what, if any measures, apart from “ protecting” the vulnerable would you have taken, bearing in mind we didn’t even have proper PPE at the outset. 

Frankly, my problem with all of this is I dont see how you can  realistically have a half way house lock down. Either you have one or you don’t.

 

1. by age and illness;

2. by NI number and medical records

3. supported quarantine at home with shopping and medicines delivered and furlough payments;

4. voluntary

5. all of the measures in 3 could have been used from the outset.

Easy and cheap compared to lockdowns and furloughing millions of people who are not at risk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

The law already forces people to self-isolate in certain circumstances, and indeed imposes significant and blanket restrictions on the whole UK population. Is this fair, reasonable or proportionate to the problem that is trying to be solved - punishing everyone and destroying their livelihoods to protect a certain (largely retired) population?

As with anything, there has to be a defined cut-off point. Is an 18-year-old any more responsible than one that's 17 years 364 days old? Yet that one day invests significant rights and responsibilities in law.

The question I asked was : “ Should measures take to protect ( the vulnerable ) be voluntary or legally enforceable. It follows from the earlier questions.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DC2 said:

1. by age and illness;

2. by NI number and medical records

3. supported quarantine at home with shopping and medicines delivered and furlough payments;

4. voluntary

5. all of the measures in 3 could have been used from the outset.

Easy and cheap compared to lockdowns and furloughing millions of people who are not at risk.

What age and what illness ?  This is where it gets difficult. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, E I Addio said:

What age and what illness ?  This is where it gets difficult. 

No, it doesn’t.  Just look at the age and comorbidity statistics and draw a line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

What age and what illness ?  This is where it gets difficult. 

A think its difficult if its voluntary, as some will and some won't and some will say that those that wont should. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

The question I asked was : “ Should measures take to protect ( the vulnerable ) be voluntary or legally enforceable. It follows from the earlier questions.

If a decision was made to allow people of certain ages but not others to largely go about their business, then it would have to be legally enforceable. Young people frequently get the blame for partying etc.., but those over 65 are actually amongst the worst for breaking the rules when everyone else is having to make sacrifices ostensibly to protect them. 

As for the cut-off age, should be based on the medical evidence, but certainly anyone over the legal age of retirement who no longer has to work.

Edited by Humphrey Appleby
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, DC2 said:

No, it doesn’t.  Just look at the age and comorbidity statistics and draw a line.

 

It does. People are on the thread harrumphing about freedoms. Medical records are private. The Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from disclosing a patients medical history without permission. So, I ask again, who looks at the patients medical records, overriding the patients right to a confidential medical history ? 
As soon as you go beyond accessing a patients medical history , you open another can of worms about privacy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

It does. People are on the thread harrumphing about freedoms. Medical records are private. The Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from disclosing a patients medical history without permission. So, I ask again, who looks at the patients medical records, overriding the patients right to a confidential medical history ? 
As soon as you go beyond accessing a patients medical history , you open another can of worms about privacy.

Not all doctors take the oath, it’s no longer compulsory...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

If a decision was made to allow people of certain ages but not others to largely go about their business, then it would have to be legally enforceable

 Here’s the problem: you say it should be enforceable, DC2 says a few posts back it should be voluntary,  Thats just two people on one thread of a speedway forum , multiply that country wide with politicians and human rights groups putting their oar in and you have a multitude of problems. FWIW I think you are right I theory but as we are talking about freedoms I don’t see how you can frame a law that says you are ok up to 64 but we are coming to lock you up on your 65th birthday if you don’t conform.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

It does. People are on the thread harrumphing about freedoms. Medical records are private. The Hippocratic Oath prevents doctors from disclosing a patients medical history without permission. So, I ask again, who looks at the patients medical records, overriding the patients right to a confidential medical history ? 
As soon as you go beyond accessing a patients medical history , you open another can of worms about privacy.

 

Just now, E I Addio said:

 Here’s the problem: you say it should be enforceable, DC2 says a few posts back it should be voluntary,  Thats just two people on one thread of a speedway forum , multiply that country wide with politicians and human rights groups putting their oar in and you have a multitude of problems. FWIW I think you are right I theory but as we are talking about freedoms I don’t see how you can frame a law that says you are ok up to 64 but we are coming to lock you up on your 65th birthday if you don’t conform.

 

The government just passes a law.

As the scheme is voluntary it would be for those who wish to benefit to prove they qualify so giving their NI numbers or disclosing a medical condition would be down to them.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Blupanther said:

Not all doctors take the oath, it’s no longer compulsory...

They still cannot or will not disclose a patients medical history without permission. You are the one who talks about freedoms and the thin end of the wedge. If doctors were ordered to start disclosing medical records to lay people without permission it would be the thin end of a very big wedge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, E I Addio said:

They still cannot or will not disclose a patients medical history without permission. You are the one who talks about freedoms and the thin end of the wedge. If doctors were ordered to start disclosing medical records to lay people without permission it would be the thin end of a very big wedge.

This is irrelevant.

The patient would ask the doctor to disclose the condition if he wished to benefit from quarantine.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, DC2 said:

 

 

The government just passes a law.

As the scheme is voluntary it would be for those who wish to benefit to prove they qualify so giving their NI numbers or disclosing a medical condition would be down to them.

As I said to Hump, you say voluntary he says legally enforceable. So someone has to sort that hurdle out first. If it’s voluntary a huge percentage won’t be taking it up, which makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

Share this post


Link to post

Many patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes have exemption from prescription charges and that is evident to the government in any event.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy