Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
That's disingenuous, as you know UK Govt policy is for targeted quarantine now for outbreaks. Other countries have managed that without a vaccine and we should be able to as well.
However, that said, I think we've gone too far too fast in the UK already. My experience is that most things are going back to "normal" with some enhanced social distancing for flavour. I understood that our T&T was supposed to roll out once we hit certain levels of fatalities and infection of the virus and be combined with the App. I'm concerned that we've jumped the gun and things aren't ready.
I'm not sure that we're not just setting ourselves up for a fall and a potential re-imposition of stringent lockdown again but with less money and political and public support. The Cummings affair has had a hugely negative impact on trust, that could be a real problem.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
if the dominic cummings thing 'damaged trust' then its those people who are taking what he did as some sort of weird personal insult who are at fault. I dont care what he did. hes an adult, he made a decision. Thats it. It should have never come to such a head as it did, (especially given all the other politicians who broke the 'rules', usually in more extreme ways, that we know about) but we all know why that was the case.
Somewhat ironic that those complaining how things were 'too vague' and begging for government hand holding just a few weeks back are now suddenly resolute in their application of the 'rules' when using them to witch hunt someone they dont like. its all a big joke.
Thankfully everything seems to be returning to normal. I went for a walk down the thames again today. tons of people out in the sun. kayakers, swimmers. And I let my daughter play in an empty park. stupid arbitrary rules are stupid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/30 17:15:59
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
More on UK death certification. The guy seems to be a legit doctor, but sceptical about data use.
Given that Russia is currently getting gak for reclassifying coronavirus deaths as "accidentally fell out a window, such a shame", do you really want to be using their blatant propaganda engine as a source?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/30 21:27:51
queen_annes_revenge wrote: if the dominic cummings thing 'damaged trust' then its those people who are taking what he did as some sort of weird personal insult who are at fault. I dont care what he did. hes an adult, he made a decision. Thats it. It should have never come to such a head as it did, (especially given all the other politicians who broke the 'rules', usually in more extreme ways, that we know about) but we all know why that was the case.
Those politicians have either resigned or apologised, Cummings has done neither. That, and Johnson and the cabinet backing him unequivocally sends the message that it's OK to ignore the rules and use your best judgement. There are far to many people in this country whose "best judgement" involves drinking alcohol before driving, taking illegal substances and doing all sorts of ridiculously stupid things. Trusting the average Joe to use their best judgment is usually OK for most people, but there's a lot of bloody idiots out there. As has been proven lately.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Somewhat ironic that those complaining how things were 'too vague' and begging for government hand holding just a few weeks back are now suddenly resolute in their application of the 'rules' when using them to witch hunt someone they dont like. its all a big joke.
The rules were very clear, he breached them and he had a hand in creating them. Ergo he's a hypocrite and the Govt should have at the very least made him apologise.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Thankfully everything seems to be returning to normal. I went for a walk down the thames again today. tons of people out in the sun. kayakers, swimmers. And I let my daughter play in an empty park. stupid arbitrary rules are stupid.
I'm staggered that you think things are going back to normal, and the blasé attitude of the British public I have witnessed over the last week. It is folly to let things go back to normal when our rate of mortality is still so high. Sadly we may have to attempt to lock down again thanks to this.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Did Ian blackford resign? Or that other one who went to all the funerals? I didn't notice.
The rules weren't clear. The public and the media made that clear
a few weeks back when they were decrying the government for more clarity.
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
The government shouldn't be 'making' anybody apologise. They're not authoritarian overlords.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/30 22:09:14
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
This is true. I was trying to point out the absurdity of shutting down 'until' a vaccine is made.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/05/30 22:47:37
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
I know that government are clinging onto 'might' like stalactites, but it's only there because cops don't preempt courts. If they say 'a law may have been broken' they absolutely mean 'we believe the law was broken'.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Did Ian blackford resign? Or that other one who went to all the funerals? I didn't notice.
The rules weren't clear. The public and the media made that clear
a few weeks back when they were decrying the government for more clarity.
Durham police said he 'MAY have committed a MINOR breach' or words to that effect.. but now they're getting stick for it. The heretic must be burned at all costs!
The government shouldn't be 'making' anybody apologise. They're not authoritarian overlords.
Johnson is his boss. If he told Cummings to apologise, he would or face the consequences. Regardless, Cummings definitely breached the rules and then concocted a ridiculous story to attempt to elicit sympathy from a nation who have endured many more privations and pain than he could understand. The man shamelessly and arrogantly claimed he had done nothing wrong, when he absolutely had. He then claimed he had "exceptional" circumstances, which turned out to be nothing more than many of us have had to face.
The very least he could do is apologise, but he could not bring himself to do that and the cabinet backed him to the hilt.
However you cut it, that is wrong and is the reason so many people of all political stripes are so angry and why the Govt has damaged it's trust and reputation which will have repurcussions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/30 23:06:14
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Cummings is certainly in the wrong And it certainly has repercussions for controlling the virus.
You can make the case that his trip to Durham was legitimate. It absolutely broke the spirit of the rules he was instrumental in forming but it doesn't break the law. He's unquestionably a hypocrite, and he's retrospectively jumping on guidance that allows some leeway for people in danger due to abusive family members to justify his actions, which is pretty despicable, and both he and his wife lied about it, but taken at face value his reasoning is potentially valid. However, the trip to Barnard Castle clearly breaks lockdown rules, and his (obviously untrue) justification also breaks the law.
Alas, had government simply said, almost two weeks ago, that he shouldn't have gone to Barnard Castle but he was too important to strategy and messaging to let go this would have blown over. Instead they've made it abundantly clear that lockdown rules are open to interpretation, depending on who you are.
People are already starting to use his behaviour as justification for flouting rules, and government are now muddying the waters relentlessly by bending over backwards to both insist he didn't break any rules, and that everyone else must follow the rules that expressly forbid what he did.
Some will argue (or have always argued) that the public can be left to their own devices and that they are well capable of using their own judgement so this has no bearing on behaviour. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the populace thing he was wrong, That he broke the rules, and that he should be sacked, so if your position is that what he did was fine, then that populace's judgement clashes hard with your own, and maybe you should rethink whether they're adequately set to use their own best interpretations?
Part of the issue is that the government has encouraged this attitude of right or fired. Rather than a stern punishment and public apology they've instead adopted a policy of either proving they are in the right or firing people. Which tends to work ok for them until you get really key people doing stupid things who suddenly aren't easily replaced at a time when you don't necessarily want reshuffles.
That said I'm also annoyed at the media because they've helped turn this into a distraction fiasco that the more its highlighted the more it weakens the lockdown situation and the control measures. Even if you prove that the government has faults in its approach; a media that feeds those faults is just as much to blame even if they are "seeking justice".
I'm sure there are better ways and means other than focusing on this issue. It's almost like something out of 40K with the insane lengths they are going too - yes lets all drive cars long distance to make sure we've got good eyesight - I mean its not even a credible excuse, its a childish situation of lies.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
Only the Twitter post from prof Karol Sikora. There's an article in the spectator too but I figured people would just attack that source. The rules have been changed though, in that only one doctor is required, can do it remotely, and need not have had any contact before death as they did before. It's in the medical part of the new act. I could root it out but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
It's precisely because people disagree on things that situations like this require the application of judgement and common sense.
These new laws are somewhat unprecedented, in that before this act, everything was permitted unless forbidden by law.
The new laws are the opposite. You were only supposed to do certain things. But the non exhaustive 'excuses', extenuating circumstances, and wide ranging nuances of the general public meant that those pieces of legislation were for all intents and purposes, useless, other than an excuse for overzealous rozzers to lace up their jackboots.
That's why it was pointless bringing them in at a blanket level for the general public. They would have been better off just closing down businesses. That would've had the exact same effect as what we have now as no one would have anything or anywhere to go to.
That's the only thing that's been stopping me going anywhere, the fact that nowhere is open.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/05/31 00:19:02
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
There is a middle ground somewhere between "you don't nee dto take precautions" and "isolate until you die of old age".
Attempting to make this a binary choice (in either direction) is silly. Socially distance. Limit non-essential travel. wear a mask. Those 3 things take us a long way toward keeping ourselves and others safe. Are they a big deal? No. Are they a grave and terrible burden? No. Are they annoying? Yes. Is your health and the health of others worth a bit of annoyance? Sure.
I'm in the US and people here are all "don't tread on me!" "Look at my AR!" It's all pretty silly IMO. Be responsible. Consider others. Deal with some annoyances. It's not all that difficult. I know 2 people that have died from Corona. A neighbor and a college friend. This stuff is real.
God, you would think it would be that easy. Frankly, I think the American mental block is that we are too worried about our personal image. Worried that wearing a mask makes us look "weak" or something comparable. It's simple school-age vanity, covered up with peudo-science BS about the harms of masks and cries that it's stifling our freedoms. As long as you don't have a valid medical condition, wearing a mask for minutes at a time (which is all it is for the vast, vast majority of us) isn't going to hurt anyone, nor is it a sign of a 1984 authoritarian regime shift.
I am a full-time delivery driver, and I have a mask on for less than an hour combined of a two-week paycheck of between 70-80 hours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/31 02:31:41
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
queen_annes_revenge wrote: so, nothing feasible then. cool. You just going to stay cooped up in your house until you die of old age?
Oh boy, another one of these answers. You don't understand how this 6ft apart thing works? Because you can go outside, you can go out. Nobody is stopping you from taking a walk around the block.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I did look into his background beforehand, specifically vaccine related.
Did not see the cholesterol stuff.
Regardless, the death certification issue has been pointed out by others in the medical community...
I've had a brief search and could only find occasional articles from either official govt sources or on reputable news outlets that refer to how the Govt classifies deaths in the UK.
Have you got any sources for that claim?
Only the Twitter post from prof Karol Sikora. There's an article in the spectator too but I figured people would just attack that source. The rules have been changed though, in that only one doctor is required, can do it remotely, and need not have had any contact before death as they did before. It's in the medical part of the new act. I could root it out but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
...
OK, I'm not going to ask you to do that, seems a little pointless. I don't doubt that there have been anomalies and inaccuracies in reporting cause of death, but I don't think there would have been anywhere enough to significantly alter the results.
Maybe in the wash up, we'll learn more.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about how deaths are certified.
In the (recent) past, the process went like this:
A person passes away.
A registered medical practitioner confirms the death.
A registered medical practitioner who has cared for the patient in the last 2 weeks writes the death certification- this takes a specific structure:
1a:
1b:
1c:
2:
(examples of this below)
Spoiler:
1 is supposed to be the actual cause of death with conditions directly leading to the death, 2 is contributing factors. This does not mean the mode of death, such as asphyxiation, it would be, say, choking (which kills through asphyxiation). Not every step needs to be filled.
Example:
1a Aspiration pneumonia
1b Cerebral palsy
1c Birth trauma
2 ------
An example based on cancer:
1a COVID pneumonia
1b Lung cancer
1c Smoking (this wouldn't often be included)
2 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
As you can see, someone could be dying from cancer, but gets finished off by COVID, and both are listed in the certification. If a practitioner did not think the COVID actually is what lead to the patient dying, they could list it in 2 instead.
This is not an exact science, by a long shot. It is often not clear what the exact cause of death was in a patient, and most people nowadays are heavily co-morbid when they pass away, with multiple disease processes contributing to their death. The format above attempts to allow this nuance into the process, by not listing a single line for the cause.
A medical examiner reviews the certification to make sure it is reasonable.
If the patient is being buried and there are no concerns or specific circumstances, that is it. A hospital post-mortem examination may occur, with permission, for the purposes of medical science, but these are getting increasingly rare.
If a patient is being cremated, then two forms need to be filled in- one by a practitioner who cared for the patient in the last 2 weeks, and one by a doctor who had no medical contact with the patient as an independent professional. Both must examine the cadaver for pacemakers and other dangerous implants. A medical examiner reviews this too. The reason for this is because you cannot exhume a cremated body and any evidence of foul play is destroyed with the body.
If there are concerns, or if the patient falls into specific categories (say they have died of an industrial disease, or a medical practitioner has not seen the patient within 2 weeks of death) then the case automatically goes to the Coroner for an enquiry. This may involve a Coroner's post-mortem (these are the common post-mortems) if necessary. The cause of death is issued following the enquiry, alongside any cremation paperwork.
So, what has changed? In terms of certifying deaths, the "must have cared for the patient" period has been extended to 4 weeks prior to death. The biggest change though, is that so long as any registered practitioner has seen the patient within 28 days, another registered practitioner can certify the death if they can state the cause of death to the best of the knowledge and belief. In other words, they are going on record with a professional opinion, based upon their professional registration. This is not without oversight! If it came to light that a specific practitioner was incorrectly listing a lot of deaths, they would have some very difficult questions to answer with their fitness to practice being called into question. That is why people take this seriously and try their best to list an accurate cause of death. Of course some causes of death will be inaccurate in the thousands listed every year, but it will not be a large number, and the format of the listings means that the correct cause is most likely still included somewhere and still being tracked in statistics.
Note that any care provided by healthcare professionals should be well documented, so determining the cause of death for most patients is not especially difficult so long as someone has seen them (multiple co-morbidities notwithstanding). Even in the previous system, you would often find yourself flicking through the notes to find out what happened when they passed away over the weekend and you are left to write the certification on the following Monday.
I think there are also changes to how cremation forms are being handled, but that is only following trends of increasing use of medical examiners anyway (there was talk of removing the part 2 form completed by an independent doctor, and replacing it with the medical examiner review, which was a pre-existing plan before COVID. I think this has happened).
The text of the guidance we received is below.
Spoiler:
a. Any medical practitioner with GMC registration can sign the MCCD, even if they did not attend the deceased during their last illness, if the following conditions are met:
i. The medical practitioner who attended is unable to sign the MCCD or it is impractical for them to do so and,
ii. the medical practitioner who proposes to sign the MCCD is able to state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief, and
iii. a medical practitioner has attended the deceased (including visual/video consultation) within 28 days before death, or viewed the body in person after death (including for verification).
If another medical practitioner attended the deceased during their last illness or after death, the medical practitioner signing the MCCD should record the name and GMC number of the medical practitioner who attended the deceased during their last illness or after death at the ‘last seen alive’ section of the MCCD.
In addition to (i) to (iii) above, if no medical practitioner attended the deceased in the 28 days before death1 or after death, a medical practitioner can sign the MCCD if the following conditions are met:
iv. The medical practitioner who proposes to sign the MCCD is able to state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief, and
v. the medical practitioner has obtained agreement from the coroner they can complete the MCCD.
Medical practitioners working in the same practice/hospital should find this straightforward as they can access patient records. Reasons it is impractical for the attending medical practitioner to complete the MCCD might include: severe pressure on NHS services and the need to ensure medical practitioners with appropriate skills are available to treat patients; and/or medical practitioners becoming infected with COVID-19 and needing to self-isolate. During periods of excess deaths due to COVID-19, healthcare providers are encouraged to redeploy medical practitioners whose role does not usually include direct patient care, such as some medical examiners, to provide indirect support by working as dedicated certifiers, completing MCCDs to enable other medical practitioners to focus on providing patient care.
I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. I really do not think there will be any significant systematic over-reporting of COVID mortality.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
I hope you're right. I do wish that they would do separate categories for confirmed and suspected though. Might make some of the media reports a little less alarmist. But then I guess that's not the medical services fault. The media will always media.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I hope you're right. I do wish that they would do separate categories for confirmed and suspected though. Might make some of the media reports a little less alarmist. But then I guess that's not the medical services fault. The media will always media.
Well, there are- the advice I got from a medical examiner was that we can put probable or suspected COVID pneumonia on death certificates. I have no idea how the government is using these statistics, they are probably just ignoring them for now as not confirmed.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
The media fear factory did most of the work for them.
Give Cummings his due. He's amazing at getting the media to push simple, punchy, and memorable messages.
Lots of beaches and parks anecdotally reporting their busiest days in memory today. Nota lot of social distancing in the BBC images. We'll see how that pans out.
Great banter at today's briefing, too. Given the potential for scammers/pranksters to stir trouble With the track and trace programme, when asked how you would know if a tracer calling telling you to isolate was genuine, the Depute CMO Jenny Harries said that ‘It will be very obvious. These are professionally trained individuals. It will be evident from how they speak.’
Jesus wept.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/31 18:19:42
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
Not according to their own justification of why it is safe and how you can tell it's genuine. They just said it'll always come from a stated phone number, they'll ask you to confirm your name, address, and dob, and they won't ask for other personal details.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/31 18:44:06
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
Not according to their own justification of why it is safe and how you can tell it's genuine. They just said it'll always come from a stated phone number, they'll ask you to confirm your name, address, and dob, and they won't ask for other personal details.
I don't think a scammer would need much else to get started with would they?
That is not something I was expecting at all. I believed everything would be handled via the App, including being alerted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It will be very obvious because they will know your NHS number.
I'll be honest, I don't know my NHS number off by heart. How would they access that?
I've had a look at the official advice, it's here;
call you from 0300 013 5000
send you text messages from ‘NHS’
ask you to sign into the NHS test and trace contact-tracing website
ask for your full name and date of birth to confirm your identity, and postcode to offer support while self-isolating
ask about the coronavirus symptoms you have been experiencing
ask you to provide the name, telephone number and/or email address of anyone you have had close contact with in the 2 days prior to your symptoms starting
ask if anyone you have been in contact with is under 18 or lives outside of England
I wonder if that number is somehow protected from Spoofing?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/31 19:58:52
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Very few people know their NHS number- if someone quoted a ten digit number at you, would you know if it was genuine or not?
When I was getting tested for COVID two weeks ago, the occupational health worker was surprised I had mine to hand because most people don't.
Occupational health didn't have my NHS number available, that is why they were asking me, because it would make processing the test smoother. They had my name, address, phone number, and date of birth. The only bit they gave away was my name, in the opening question. The rest I had to provide to prove I was genuinely who they thought I was (this being standard practice in ID'ing people when face-to-face).
You would basically only need someone's name and number to successfully prank/defraud them.
The new track and trace system may be able to access NHS numbers, but with current data protection laws I think people would have to opt in to allowing their data to be used by the system. I'm not sure if it can piggyback on medical confidentiality practice regarding sharing identifiable data, but if it can, then they would maybe be able to pull the NHS numbers from the NHS data spine. That would be logical, but then hospitals have a hard time accessing GP records for patients, so who knows?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/31 20:26:47
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
