I was thinking of the announcement this morning of the response to the call for a universal basic income during this emergency (which is, of course, a stupendously good idea anyway, especially now). But, the support for the self-employed is also something that's only going to help a few of those who need it.
Ah yes - "targeted" in government speak means that we can direct it to people who might be persuaded to vote for us by some judiciously applied bribery, or who can be threatened or punished with its withdrawl.
A Universal Income (distributed universally, paid for by general taxation) does of course target those who need it by construction. There's a bit of a wrinkle in that statement attached to local conditions (some parts of the country are more expensive than others to live in. Do the expensive places attract a higher UBI, etc. The answers aren't straightforward, but there are some interesting conversations to have.)
It's not true that COVID19 only kills the unfit, there are many stories of relatively fit and healthy people becoming really unwell and/or dying. Yes there are people who are seemingly sailing through this, but anyone getting it can become very ill; the breathing difficulties kick in after a week or more. So Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson may not have passed the worst yet.
Since Matt Hancock was on Question Time last night, and interviews this morning, he's presumably now asymptomatic, and has been for a couple of days, and therefore should be over the worst (though as has been previously noted there have been instances of symptoms clearing, even to the point of passing the mouth swab tests, and then returning later ... but these seem very rare). Boris looked quite unwell at the door of No 10 clapping last night, and seems to be having a worse time of it.
Matt Hancock seemed pale and tired but fine on the TV yesterday - the briefing was over an hour long and he was standing up - and he was on Question Time, quite late.
But I don’t think the PM is doing as well.
It will be interesting if he ends up in hospital or dying. 🤔
It seems to be worse when the immune system goes into overdrive fighting it. I wonder if it’s a cousin of anaphylaxis?
Since Matt Hancock was on Question Time last night, and interviews this morning, he's presumably now asymptomatic
I'm having a bit of difficulty with the timeline, as it appears that the NHS guidelines (which run short of the WHO guidelines) require a 7 day isolation period, and he did only 6.
His statement that he'd tested positive was on Friday 27th, so that's six days between that statement and his return to work. The test takes time, and he must have had symptoms to take the test, then that would mean he'd already been self-isolating for a couple of days before that statement. So, he should have managed more than 7 days self-isolation if he'd followed his own advice and self-isolated as soon as he developed symptoms.
It will be interesting if he ends up in hospital or dying. 🤔
It seems to be worse when the immune system goes into overdrive fighting it. I wonder if it’s a cousin of anaphylaxis?
He's just been on the news speaking to the nation, looking significantly under the weather. Still generating a temperature apparently and has been recommended to continue self-isolation for another week. Still continuing to head up government.
Yes - AIUI, at 8pm (BST) on TV, radio, and social media.
Should be Interesting™ - but what can she say that's not already been said? Bonnie Prince Charlie did quite well at the opening of the ExCel hospital...
BTW, where's HRH the Duke of Edinburgh these days?
I just thought about what would happen, or not happen, should the Duke of Edinburgh or her Maj (or any other royal) die in these days. There are instructions for what is to happen on the death of the Queen, lesser instructions for other royals, which leaders of the national churches are updated on regularly. They are to do with who holds the first service where (I believe it is St. Giles, Edinburgh not only for Scotland but for anywhere) and which church in a town or area is the nominated one for the official service of remembrance/mourning. I think it is known as operation Tower Bridge, but I could be misremembering the London landmark it is named for. Anyway, it couldn't happen now. And some of that might not be a bad thing.
So what word do we use to describe the active killing of those we deem unfit in order to strengthen the economy?
The policy being referred to would not be actively killing people. It would be passively allowing them to die, which is not the same thing at all.
Which isn't necessarily to say it's a good thing, of course. But it's something governments do all the time, whenever they make decisions about which health policies to pursue. Whenever you decide to fund treatment for one disease and not another you're saying the people who will be killed by the other aren't as important.
Oh, the dark hilarity of people who have horrific thoughts they try to deny to themselves by selectively pruning the definitions of select "bad words".
Conversely, it rapidly stops being funny when they embrace the horrific definitions and start claiming it as identity. #conservativebase
So what word do we use to describe the active killing of those we deem unfit in order to strengthen the economy?
The policy being referred to would not be actively killing people. It would be passively allowing them to die, which is not the same thing at all.
Which isn't necessarily to say it's a good thing, of course. But it's something governments do all the time, whenever they make decisions about which health policies to pursue. Whenever you decide to fund treatment for one disease and not another you're saying the people who will be killed by the other aren't as important.
Sure, if it'll salve the shrivelled walnut you use as a conscience, then we can maintain that polite fiction.
But it is absolutely a fiction. Where I come from, we call it a sin of omission.
I think it is known as operation Tower Bridge, but I could be misremembering the London landmark it is named for.
London Bridge, I think.
Some of it you can do - the TV stations have their plans ready to go, and those won't be altered all that much by the current conditions - but all the public pomp and people gathering together is clearly not compatible with social distance.
So we modify it, do what we can, don't do what we can't, and move on.
And, as we have recently discovered - there are no ‘unskilled’ workers either. We all have something to contribute.
"Unskilled" and "having something to contribute" aren't mutually exclusive. Unskilled labour just means something a normal person can do without significant training. Lots of essential jobs require very little in the way of special training. That doesn't mean they're not useful.
His statement that he'd tested positive was on Friday 27th, so that's six days between that statement and his return to work. The test takes time, and he must have had symptoms to take the test, then that would mean he'd already been self-isolating for a couple of days before that statement. So, he should have managed more than 7 days self-isolation if he'd followed his own advice and self-isolated as soon as he developed symptoms.
So what word do we use to describe the active killing of those we deem unfit in order to strengthen the economy?
The policy being referred to would not be actively killing people. It would be passively allowing them to die, which is not the same thing at all.
Which isn't necessarily to say it's a good thing, of course. But it's something governments do all the time, whenever they make decisions about which health policies to pursue. Whenever you decide to fund treatment for one disease and not another you're saying the people who will be killed by the other aren't as important.
Sure, if it'll salve the shrivelled walnut you use as a conscience, then we can maintain that polite fiction.
But it is absolutely a fiction. Where I come from, we call it a sin of omission.
Government could completely and utterly prevent every single vehicle-related death starting from tomorrow, by the simple expedient of banning all vehicles. Is their failure to do so, and thus their acceptance that vehicle-related deaths will inevitably happen, also the sinful work of someone who has a shrivelled walnut for a conscience? Or are those deaths the price that has to be paid for the greater social good of vehicular travel?
Or on Coronavirus, the government could stop it completely by decreeing that nobody at all is allowed to leave their homes for any reason whatsoever for a month, and then completely closing the borders so that it can’t come in from elsewhere. Should they do that? Isn’t not doing that causing deaths by omission? Or are there, in fact, limits to how far a government should go to combat a disease even though not going further will result in more death?
And if you do accept the existence of such limits, why are you so quick to anathematise anyone who disagrees with you about where they are?
Government could completely and utterly prevent every single vehicle-related death starting from tomorrow, by the simple expedient of banning all vehicles. Is their failure to do so, and thus their acceptance that vehicle-related deaths will inevitably happen, also the sinful work of someone who has a shrivelled walnut for a conscience? Or are those deaths the price that has to be paid for the greater social good of vehicular travel?
Favorite non-sequitur of conservative assholes everywhere trying to argue against precautions. Is this the look you want?
So what word do we use to describe the active killing of those we deem unfit in order to strengthen the economy?
The policy being referred to would not be actively killing people. It would be passively allowing them to die, which is not the same thing at all.
Which isn't necessarily to say it's a good thing, of course. But it's something governments do all the time, whenever they make decisions about which health policies to pursue. Whenever you decide to fund treatment for one disease and not another you're saying the people who will be killed by the other aren't as important.
Sure, if it'll salve the shrivelled walnut you use as a conscience, then we can maintain that polite fiction.
But it is absolutely a fiction. Where I come from, we call it a sin of omission.
Government could completely and utterly prevent every single vehicle-related death starting from tomorrow, by the simple expedient of banning all vehicles. Is their failure to do so, and thus their acceptance that vehicle-related deaths will inevitably happen, also the sinful work of someone who has a shrivelled walnut for a conscience? Or are those deaths the price that has to be paid for the greater social good of vehicular travel?
Or on Coronavirus, the government could stop it completely by decreeing that nobody at all is allowed to leave their homes for any reason whatsoever for a month, and then completely closing the borders so that it can’t come in from elsewhere. Should they do that? Isn’t not doing that causing deaths by omission? Or are there, in fact, limits to how far a government should go to combat a disease even though not going further will result in more death?
And if you do accept the existence of such limits, why are you so quick to anathematise anyone who disagrees with you about where they are?
Both the measures you suggest would result in more deaths, not fewer, numbnuts.
His statement that he'd tested positive was on Friday 27th, so that's six days between that statement and his return to work. The test takes time, and he must have had symptoms to take the test, then that would mean he'd already been self-isolating for a couple of days before that statement. So, he should have managed more than 7 days self-isolation if he'd followed his own advice and self-isolated as soon as he developed symptoms.
My point was that he had probably self-isolated for 7 days since developing symptoms. Which is a different point from whether he should have self-isolated for a longer period.
AIUI the government advice is that if you develop any covid-like symptoms you should self-isolate for 7 days if you live alone (14 days from the time the last person in the household develops symptoms if you live with others). If what you've got is either a very mild case of covid-19 or something else your symptoms should clear up within that period - if they don't then you need to be consulting NHS24.
I assume a definitive diagnosis of covid-19 (either a test or symptoms that are more severe and thus almost certainly covid-19) would trigger further advice to self-isolate which will be communicated to you by the NHS when you talk to them ... I can't see how the advice would be to end self-isolation while still showing symptoms.
Because the guidance says *new* continuous cough - there is a statement that cough may continue sometime after you are no longer shedding virus (because your lungs have been irritated).
Boris is still in isolation because he has a temperature, which indicates his body is still fighting infection
I assume a definitive diagnosis of covid-19 (either a test or symptoms that are more severe and thus almost certainly covid-19) would trigger further advice to self-isolate which will be communicated to you by the NHS when you talk to them
As I understand from an interview with Hancock, he was tested and tested positive (so did receive a definitive diagnosis, and wasn't going purely from symptoms).
[And I agree that whether the 7 days is sufficient is a slightly separate issue]
Just read an article (allegedly by a Conservative, but not done the research) that Corbyn would have been better than Johnson, but it was so bizarre.
Basically it was saying he would have put business (and hence workers) ahead of the lockdown.
Which of course we know he didn't in non-government ('opposition'), although of course that makes a difference.
I personally think he'd have moved earlier but met with more resistance (all in the balance I'm going for three days net effect*). Which I think would have been better (although time will tell).
Kind of agreeing with the article I'm sure he would have (we know he did as Opposition) thought about protecting the workers (esp the self employed) and those in crapped isolation earlier and harder than Boris, just not by ignoring their health.
Plus of course he was in favour of more hospital beds and spaces generally years and years ago.
*Boris's solution in theory being about 3 days better than reality if not spoiled by Skegness and Tim Martin. Corbyn being about two weeks ahead of that (not wasting the time in herd immunity, giving the poor the power to stay home) but losing another week to Tory 'hoax' campaigning and the papers.
All in all it seemed a strange partial projection of right wing ideals onto Corbyn. It was odd.
People are getting the broadband is a utility thing now too. Today’s editorial in the FT is also quite stunning too - they are starting to sound to the left of The Guardian.
Something which I find troubling is that in at least one of the shots of our Prime Minister having his Zoom cabinet meeting, supposedly so that he could show us he was carrying on governing while sick and in isolation, there are clearly other people in the room. This includes someone who looks like a female secretary, and at least one other Cabinet Minister who was supposed himself to be in isolation.
The press homed in on the security risk of letting the public at large, including the spies of various foreign powers, see the screen with the other Cabinet members' user names. They don't seem to have been anything like so bothered that our leaders appear to take it for granted that their menials are expected to take the risk of being infected so as to gratify their masters' determination to go ahead with the meeting. This doesn't just mean the secretary in the picture. One must assume it includes whatever government driver brought the other sick cabinet member there.
To me, this was so disturbing that I wondered if it had been faked. So I checked. It did not just appear in the Daily Mail, which might well be a bit blasé with its sources. It was also on the BBC website. So I assume it isn't.
Am I being unfair, but to me, this is callous and speaks of the worst presumptions of public school entitlement? Or is there some other explanation?
To be fair that photo is from the (late on the) 24th (he was also in Parliament for PMQ's on the 25th).
The diagnosis was on the 27th (although quite early).
In hindsight he must have been potentially contagious then, and must either of doubly skipped the queue or already been in test.
People are getting the broadband is a utility thing now too. Today’s editorial in the FT is also quite stunning too - they are starting to sound to the left of The Guardian.
Being to the left of The Guardian is not exactly difficult.
...and Cumming's (surprisingly establishment) Uncle another casualty. That must be an horrifying moment for any human. I hope he seeks good help and finds it.
Thoughts with the nurses, who I'm sure must be finding it difficult.
Just for the record, that article does not make sense. I am not saying the BBC are lying here - I think they are repeating the Downing Street statement but it does not quite add up...
Comments
As long as the cheerers and dancers keep 2 metres away from each other, I think it would be OK.
Ah yes - "targeted" in government speak means that we can direct it to people who might be persuaded to vote for us by some judiciously applied bribery, or who can be threatened or punished with its withdrawl.
A Universal Income (distributed universally, paid for by general taxation) does of course target those who need it by construction. There's a bit of a wrinkle in that statement attached to local conditions (some parts of the country are more expensive than others to live in. Do the expensive places attract a higher UBI, etc. The answers aren't straightforward, but there are some interesting conversations to have.)
I don’t know Marvin, what do you call it when the excuse is that it will merely kill the unfit ?
So I'm thinking it' s Marvin who has to recalibrate his morality. The rest of us, not so much.
But I don’t think the PM is doing as well.
It will be interesting if he ends up in hospital or dying. 🤔
It seems to be worse when the immune system goes into overdrive fighting it. I wonder if it’s a cousin of anaphylaxis?
I'm having a bit of difficulty with the timeline, as it appears that the NHS guidelines (which run short of the WHO guidelines) require a 7 day isolation period, and he did only 6.
He's just been on the news speaking to the nation, looking significantly under the weather. Still generating a temperature apparently and has been recommended to continue self-isolation for another week. Still continuing to head up government.
My question has now been answered.
She’s doing one on Sunday evening.
Should be Interesting™ - but what can she say that's not already been said? Bonnie Prince Charlie did quite well at the opening of the ExCel hospital...
BTW, where's HRH the Duke of Edinburgh these days?
Not eugenics. Eugenics is the active killing of those you deem unfit in order to strengthen the race.
We all have different strengths.
And, as we have recently discovered - there are no ‘unskilled’ workers either. We all have something to contribute.
No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics?s=t
Murder?
The policy being referred to would not be actively killing people. It would be passively allowing them to die, which is not the same thing at all.
Which isn't necessarily to say it's a good thing, of course. But it's something governments do all the time, whenever they make decisions about which health policies to pursue. Whenever you decide to fund treatment for one disease and not another you're saying the people who will be killed by the other aren't as important.
Conversely, it rapidly stops being funny when they embrace the horrific definitions and start claiming it as identity. #conservativebase
Sure, if it'll salve the shrivelled walnut you use as a conscience, then we can maintain that polite fiction.
But it is absolutely a fiction. Where I come from, we call it a sin of omission.
"It happens all the time" ≠ "It's OK"
Some of it you can do - the TV stations have their plans ready to go, and those won't be altered all that much by the current conditions - but all the public pomp and people gathering together is clearly not compatible with social distance.
So we modify it, do what we can, don't do what we can't, and move on.
"Unskilled" and "having something to contribute" aren't mutually exclusive. Unskilled labour just means something a normal person can do without significant training. Lots of essential jobs require very little in the way of special training. That doesn't mean they're not useful.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1246069667891822596
Government could completely and utterly prevent every single vehicle-related death starting from tomorrow, by the simple expedient of banning all vehicles. Is their failure to do so, and thus their acceptance that vehicle-related deaths will inevitably happen, also the sinful work of someone who has a shrivelled walnut for a conscience? Or are those deaths the price that has to be paid for the greater social good of vehicular travel?
Or on Coronavirus, the government could stop it completely by decreeing that nobody at all is allowed to leave their homes for any reason whatsoever for a month, and then completely closing the borders so that it can’t come in from elsewhere. Should they do that? Isn’t not doing that causing deaths by omission? Or are there, in fact, limits to how far a government should go to combat a disease even though not going further will result in more death?
And if you do accept the existence of such limits, why are you so quick to anathematise anyone who disagrees with you about where they are?
Because you're being a dick about it. And I really don't think that you could possibly disagree.
HMQ = London Bridge
Prince Philip = Forth Bridge
The late Queen Mother was Tay Bridge, George VI was Hyde Park Corner.
Favorite non-sequitur of conservative assholes everywhere trying to argue against precautions. Is this the look you want?
Both the measures you suggest would result in more deaths, not fewer, numbnuts.
AIUI the government advice is that if you develop any covid-like symptoms you should self-isolate for 7 days if you live alone (14 days from the time the last person in the household develops symptoms if you live with others). If what you've got is either a very mild case of covid-19 or something else your symptoms should clear up within that period - if they don't then you need to be consulting NHS24.
I assume a definitive diagnosis of covid-19 (either a test or symptoms that are more severe and thus almost certainly covid-19) would trigger further advice to self-isolate which will be communicated to you by the NHS when you talk to them ... I can't see how the advice would be to end self-isolation while still showing symptoms.
Boris is still in isolation because he has a temperature, which indicates his body is still fighting infection
As I understand from an interview with Hancock, he was tested and tested positive (so did receive a definitive diagnosis, and wasn't going purely from symptoms).
[And I agree that whether the 7 days is sufficient is a slightly separate issue]
Basically it was saying he would have put business (and hence workers) ahead of the lockdown.
Which of course we know he didn't in non-government ('opposition'), although of course that makes a difference.
I personally think he'd have moved earlier but met with more resistance (all in the balance I'm going for three days net effect*). Which I think would have been better (although time will tell).
Kind of agreeing with the article I'm sure he would have (we know he did as Opposition) thought about protecting the workers (esp the self employed) and those in crapped isolation earlier and harder than Boris, just not by ignoring their health.
Plus of course he was in favour of more hospital beds and spaces generally years and years ago.
*Boris's solution in theory being about 3 days better than reality if not spoiled by Skegness and Tim Martin. Corbyn being about two weeks ahead of that (not wasting the time in herd immunity, giving the poor the power to stay home) but losing another week to Tory 'hoax' campaigning and the papers.
All in all it seemed a strange partial projection of right wing ideals onto Corbyn. It was odd.
The press homed in on the security risk of letting the public at large, including the spies of various foreign powers, see the screen with the other Cabinet members' user names. They don't seem to have been anything like so bothered that our leaders appear to take it for granted that their menials are expected to take the risk of being infected so as to gratify their masters' determination to go ahead with the meeting. This doesn't just mean the secretary in the picture. One must assume it includes whatever government driver brought the other sick cabinet member there.
To me, this was so disturbing that I wondered if it had been faked. So I checked. It did not just appear in the Daily Mail, which might well be a bit blasé with its sources. It was also on the BBC website. So I assume it isn't.
Am I being unfair, but to me, this is callous and speaks of the worst presumptions of public school entitlement? Or is there some other explanation?
The diagnosis was on the 27th (although quite early).
In hindsight he must have been potentially contagious then, and must either of doubly skipped the queue or already been in test.
Being to the left of The Guardian is not exactly difficult.
(Thanks, BTW).
Thoughts with the nurses, who I'm sure must be finding it difficult.
Just for the record, that article does not make sense. I am not saying the BBC are lying here - I think they are repeating the Downing Street statement but it does not quite add up...
As per normal.
AFZ