Whether or not you think local lockdowns work (& the evidence so far is ... not great), given the huge costs they impose, they should only be considered when there is an actual or impending crisis in hospitalisations/ICUs/deaths.
Is this the case in the North East?
The argument for focusing on increases in new positive tests is that hospitalisations will only follow about 5-7 days later & deaths after perhaps another week. There may be a further lag if infections shift from younger to older age groups.
Positive tests in the NE started increasing from 21 Aug and had already doubled by the start of Sept. So in fact, there has already been time to observe at least some impact, even on deaths.
Positive tests in NE were increasing at least until 11 Sept (lags mean data unreliable after that) but note rate of increase has been decreasing since 6th.
Testing capacity problems make it hard to interpret these data, but no sign that cases are increasing exponentially.
The dashboard only publishes hospitalisations for NE&Yorks combined. NE lockdown pop is about 1/4 of total.
Admissions have increased, currently averaging 31 /day.
ICUs were also increasing, but stabilised over the last week, currently on 15. Both figs are for whole of NE&Y.
What about deaths?
I was going to plot a graph but there isn’t much point. Over the past 4 weeks, there has been just a single hospital death reported across the NE lockdown area (for 11 Sept).
More deaths may well be reported in coming days but hard to see any sign of a crisis spiralling out of control in the NE.
Perhaps unpublished local data say something different, but I hope NE MPs are interrogating this & asking whether lockdown plans are proportionate.
Two new NE lockdown area hospital deaths reported today: one in Northumbria on 15th, one in Gateshead on 16th.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many MPs who supported the assisted suicide bill at 2nd reading were motivated by people dying in pain but also worried about pressure being put on vulnerable people. In response the Bill Committee has decided:
1. Not to include pain as a criteria for assisted suicide.
...
... 2. Not to protect homeless people or prisoners from assisted suicide, despite evidence both groups are particularly vulnerable to suicide.
3. Not to protect people requesting suicide because they feel they are a burden on others.
...
4. Not to protect people requesting suicide due to being “unduly influenced” by others.
5. Not to protect people requesting suicide because they are worried about financial cost of care.
...
🧵
Just because @KimLeadbeater asserts the slippery slope can’t happen does not make it true.
Let’s spell out how the slippery slope may operate in principle & practice:
...
...
If the #assistedsuicide bill passes, MPs will have accepted the *principle* that it is okay to help some groups of people commit suicide.
With that principle established, the question becomes which group of people should be included.
...
...
The current bill specifies those judged to have 6 months to live are eligible (whether or not in pain).
There is little logic in arguing that someone not in pain but with 3 months to live should be eligible but not someone in pain & with, say, 7 months to live.
...
Let’s talk about Oregon: a good model to follow according to Leadbeater assisted suicide bill supporters.
After legalisation, the numbers of assisted suicides skyrocketed from 16 in 1998 to 367 in 2023.
If Eng & Wales end up at same rate that's over 5,000 people each year.
...
…
The huge increase in assisted suicides has not led to a reduction in other suicides (this is one of the issues @kimleadbeater claims her Bill will address):
the rate of unassisted suicide in Oregon has increased by more than 20% since 1998.
…
…
43% of those who are helped to commit suicide in Oregon, say they were concerned about being a burden on friends, family or carers.
The percentage worried about being a burden has increased significantly over time – it was just 13% in 1998.
…
The @Channel4 @reformparty_uk racism row is developing into an astonishing story. Whether or not Ch 4 paid Andrew Parker, hard to see how they can come out unscathed.
As I see it, there are 4 possibilities:
1. @Channel4 set up & paid Parker. They are explicit they did not.
...
... 2. Someone else (production company or a 3rd party) paid Parker.
If @Channel4 knew, this is as bad as Option 1.
If Ch 4 didn't know, it means they did no due diligence.
For such a consequential story, that would be grossly irresponsible & must lead to consequences.
...
... 3. Parker was acting unpaid deliberately to smear @reformparty_uk .
Again, either @Channel4 knew, in which case their piece was deliberately deceptive, or they did not, which would again mean no due diligence & grossly irresponsible journalism.
...
An objective examination of the data and evidence suggests that delaying the March 25 lockdown decision by a week or so would have saved lives.
Here’s why …
…
We know from deaths data, NHS Triage and React that infections were almost certainly decreasing well before 25 March (and the rise in infections was levelling off even earlier). But those data were not available by the 25th.
...
...
It remains possible lockdown caused an even faster reduction in infections, preventing some Covid-related deaths in the short run but …