In article <XnsAE19AA8A069C437B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Criminal deviants and Covid vaccine deviants are both anti-sociial
> elements who have a deletrious effect on public health and
> well-being.

You're dangerous.

Bob.

In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> "Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
> Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
> questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
> be questioned.

Here's some propaganda masquerading as science.

see for yourself..

https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios

Garbage nothing more. This is the nonsense that decides if we lock
down or if we go for net zero. Activist bullshit like this.

Don't take any notice of computer models !!!

They are just the desperate end of propaganda.

Bob.

On 17:06 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE19AA8A069C437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Criminal deviants and Covid vaccine deviants are both anti-sociial
>> elements who have a deletrious effect on public health and
>> well-being.
>
> You're dangerous.

Not as dangerous as Covidiots.

On 17:17 8 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
>> Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
>> questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
>> be questioned.
>
> Here's some propaganda masquerading as science.
>
> see for yourself..
>
> https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios
>
> Garbage nothing more. This is the nonsense that decides if we lock
> down or if we go for net zero. Activist bullshit like this.
>
> Don't take any notice of computer models !!!

SAGE produces scenarios, including what will happen if no action gets
taken.

Some action does get taken, public response may not be as anticipated,
new data about virulence arrives -- thus changing inputs to the model
and a new scenario can be generated. When the facts change, the
models change.

Why are you referencing out of date modelling?

What is complicated about that which makes it so hard to grasp?

On 14:33 8 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 08/01/2022 14:08, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> Bob, can you provide a link to the graphs you are referring to
>> about mask wearing in different countries?
>
> Let sleeping shits lie, if I were you.

It's strange that Bob avoids a request to show his data.

On 14:07 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>>>antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>>>from their triage score and be seen after people are not ill from
>>>>ignoring medical advice.
>>>
>>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
>>> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
>>> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
>>> make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
>>> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>>
>>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
>>> or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
>>> with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
>>> they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
>>> of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
>>> Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
>>> driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
>>> poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
>>> depressed, etc etc?
>>>
>>> If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a
>>> system for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries,
>>> not doctors.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>
>>When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not
>>behaving with moral risk.
>>
>>Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
>>must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
>>and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
>>payment for damage to road furniture and can be done
>>retrospectively.
>
> Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
> doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of
> the front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They will
> try regardless and only give up when they know there is no hope.
>
>>There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
>>need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay
>>for any Covid medical treatment.
>>
>>Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
>>acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
>
> You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent who
> are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the remaining
> percent who are born with impairments, allergies or other medical
> conditions, or who are injured while taking part in dangerous sports
> or other activities. But where would that lead? To a doctor, a life
> to be saved is just a life to be saved if it looks feasible to save
> it.

One group you mention is deliberately taking a risk, the other is not.

If two people's lives need to be saved but only one can be, then save
the life of the person who will not unnecessarily expose themselves to
the same risk again.

On 08/01/2022 17:17, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <59a5ffad68bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Trust the science" is the most anti science statement ever.
>> Questioning science is how you do science. Science that can't be
>> questioned is propaganda. The media esp. BBC don't allow things to
>> be questioned.
>
> Here's some propaganda masquerading as science.
>
> see for yourself..
>
> https://data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios

In two different browsers, a predominantly blank page with a few buttons
at the top and a footer at the bottom, and a large blank space in
between, which I take to be a surrealist representation of your blank mind.

> Garbage nothing more. This is the nonsense that decides if we lock
> down or if we go for net zero. Activist bullshit like this.
>
> Don't take any notice of computer models !!!
>
> They are just the desperate end of propaganda.

They are a valid means of predicting the outcomes of complicated situations.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/01/2022 17:46, Pamela wrote:
> On 14:33 8 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>> On 08/01/2022 14:08, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob, can you provide a link to the graphs you are referring to
>>> about mask wearing in different countries?
>>
>> Let sleeping shits lie, if I were you.
>
> It's strange that Bob avoids a request to show his data.

I'm afraid it's not strange at all, regularly for over two years now
he's been trolling this ng by posting wildly extravagant false claims on
the basis of absolutely no data at all. I only bother to reply so that
for anyone subsequently reading his interminable lies, they can see that
they are all on record as being refuted, so hopefully they can avoid
stepping in his shit, or at least have a boot scraper to wipe it off.
Sadly, he has proved times beyond counting that he himself is beyond
being reached by rational debate, in fact that he is an individual whose
average intelligence might actually be improved by his death, because
then his idiotic and paranoid stubbornness would not be constantly
pushing it into the negative, as it will as long as he lives!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/01/2022 13:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Compare their numbers instead with the number of people protesting in
> the streets*in favour* of Boris and his lockdowns, restrictions,

Those in favour of the restrictions would not be in the streets, they
would be complying with the advice.

*Idiot*

Jim

On 08/01/2022 10:53, charles wrote:
> In article<hdnitg1fb7tg1qpd2draukf2mka815ojnd@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>> I don't dispute that the virus was a real threat that needed to be dealt
>> with, but some of the official numbers given to us are deeply suspect.
>> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics that can give you any numbers
>> you want depending on what you choose to count. For example, perhaps you
>> also can remember the pictures of those temporary emergency hospitals
>> cobbled together in vast buildings the size of aircraft hangars because,
>> we were told, thousands of patients were expected - but they were never
>> used. Why?
>
> That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
>
That is unfortunately true. Even worse, some of the skilled staff caring
for the patients also contracted the virus and made the staffing
situation worse.

However, there has been a lot of coverage in the news of "bed blockers",
the patients who could be discharged back home if only there were staff
available to care for them there. This week, Gloucester Hospital
reported having over 200 bed blockers who did not really need a hospital
bed.

I do wonder why the Nightingale Hospitals couldn't have been used for
the bed blockers. Wit all those needing assistance but not skilled
medical care in one place, it could have been run with a relatively
small number of lower skilled staff, leaving the patients who really
need skilled medial care with a proper bed rather than a stretcher in
the back of an ambulance. Such an arrangement would have made a
positive difference in the survival rates and duration of hospital stays.

Jim

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
>the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.

It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
unvaccinated alike can spread it.

In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own
doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
their own decision.

Rod.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:49:19 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>>> a civilised society should recognise as far as
>>> practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
>>> based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
>>> else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
>>> slope.
>
>It's not society that's abandoning that principle, but the individual
>nutters concerned.

Who do you think the nutters are, and why? I certainly haven't
abandoned the principle described above. It's the people who think
that entitlement to health care *should* be assigned in a
discriminatory manner based on something other than simple humanity
who appear to have abandoned it. Maybe "nutters" isn't the best
description for such people, but they certainly deserve a descriptive
term of some sort.

Rod.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:51:49 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 08/01/2022 15:02, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsAE19889B4543837B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This already applies in other parts of medicine .... a scarse liver
>>> transplant is not available to an alcoholic who won't stop
>>> drinking.
>>
>> To consider this to be remotely acceptable you have to consider that
>> one person's life is worth more than someone else's. It means that
>> you're self righteous with poor empathy for others and your moral
>> compass is well broken. For people to contemplate the value of a
>> person's life on the basis of if you agree with their political or
>> life choices is shocking and shameful. And we call ourselves
>> enlightened.
>
>Again, hypocrisy, if you consider that one person's life is as important
>as another's, stop spreading dangerous anti-vax and anti-mask fake news
>here.

I don't read it as "anti-vax" but "anti-compulsion", which is quite a
different thing. Saying that a medical treatment should not be
administered without consent is not the same as saying it should not
be administered at all.

Rod.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:54:37 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>Antivaxxers and antimaskers who have campaigned against the vaccine
>and refuse to have it should be given the lowest priority when they
>need to be admitted to hospital with Covid and should later be charged
>for the unnecessary costs incurred.

Oh dear. It's "antivaxxers" and "covidiots" in the same sentence now.
This discussion seems to have been reduced to single word ad hominem
insults rather than reasoned argument. I had hoped for better.

Rod.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 18:00:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 14:07 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 13:15:12 GMT, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09:46 8 Jan 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:21:23 GMT, Pamela
>>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A&E and ICU are cluttered up with people who have chosen a risky
>>>>>course of action despite warning to the contrary. Drunks,
>>>>>antivaxxers who contract Covid, etc should have points deducted
>>>>>from their triage score and be seen after people are not ill from
>>>>>ignoring medical advice.
>>>>
>>>> You are expecting doctors and nurses to make moral judgements of
>>>> their patients' behaviour - to "play God" if you like. Even if you
>>>> could persuade the medical professions that they should be doing
>>>> this, in practical terms on what evidence would you expect them to
>>>> make these judgements? This is assuning that all the relevant
>>>> evidence would be available at this stage anyway.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if somebody comes into A&E battered and incoherent,
>>>> or perhaps just unconscious, what do you do? Do you simply get on
>>>> with trying to save their life, or do you ask questions about how
>>>> they came to be incapacitated so that you can make your judgment
>>>> of their priority based on whether you think it was their fault?
>>>> Were they in a car accident or a fight or whatever, were they
>>>> driving, who started the fight, did somebody else give them the
>>>> poison, push them downstairs, treat them so badly they became
>>>> depressed, etc etc?
>>>>
>>>> If blame needs to be apportioned for any incident, we have a
>>>> system for dealing with that. It's the job of judges and juries,
>>>> not doctors.
>>>>
>>>> Rod.
>>>
>>>When in doubt, as you describe, the patient could be treated as not
>>>behaving with moral risk.
>>>
>>>Currently, trained admin staff retrospectively assess the cost which
>>>must be paid by foreign nationals using the NHS (usually in London)
>>>and could do so here. It's similar to a local council asking for
>>>payment for damage to road furniture and can be done
>>>retrospectively.
>>
>> Exactly. It's not triage but retrospective admin and not judged by
>> doctors. It is absolutely not and should never be the judgement of
>> the front-line lifesavers whether a life is worth saving. They will
>> try regardless and only give up when they know there is no hope.
>>
>>>There will be tricky cases to assess as you describe but the primary
>>>need at present is to make those who have refused the vaccine pay
>>>for any Covid medical treatment.
>>>
>>>Ninety percent of the population shouldn't have to pay for Covid
>>>acquired by the ten percent who won't have the jab.
>>
>> You might as well say that the the ninety (or whatever) percent who
>> are lucky enough to be healthy should not pay for the remaining
>> percent who are born with impairments, allergies or other medical
>> conditions, or who are injured while taking part in dangerous sports
>> or other activities. But where would that lead? To a doctor, a life
>> to be saved is just a life to be saved if it looks feasible to save
>> it.
>
>One group you mention is deliberately taking a risk, the other is not.
>
>If two people's lives need to be saved but only one can be, then save
>the life of the person who will not unnecessarily expose themselves to
>the same risk again.

Is there a doctor in the house? My mother was a doctor and I know what
she or any of her medical friends would have thought of that
suggestion, but it would be interesting to hear from a few more people
directly involved with medical triage if possible. Are there any here?

Rod.

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:43:42 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>> For example, a friend of a friend once chopped off half his hand
>> with a circular saw while doing DIY work. How would you have judged
>> that? Luckily the doctors did what they could without judgement,
>> because that's what doctors do.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>It happens all the time in the NHS. Not everyone who requires treament
>is given equal priority. A patient waiting to be admitted to a ward
>for treatment is given a score, A&E attendees are scored then triaged,
>etc.

Indeed, but if priority has to be given, it's based on purely
practical medical considerations - first on urgency and then on the
likelihood of success, never, absolutely never, on any moral judgement
of the patient's behaviour or what it is thought they might do with
their life after it's been saved. Doctors and nurses are not gods;
they just save every life they can without judging their value.

You get the same penalty for murdering anyone, no matter who they are,
so clearly in the eyes of the law every human life is worth the same.
If we're all equal when we're murdered, it would make no sense for us
not to be equal when somebody is trying to save us.

Rod.

On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone

If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
secret identity.

Jim

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
>
>If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
>the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
>Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
>death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
>the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
>from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
>secret identity.
>
>Jim

The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel
prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
all human lives are of equal value.

Rod.

In article <59a788163dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.

That problem seems to have popped up a few times during the covid period.
Government promises something, but then the required support isn't in
place.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <dqdltgtq5vg4572g20pj3l9a4jroaqpvi0@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> >On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
> >
> >If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
> >the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
> >Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
> >death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
> >the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
> >from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
> >secret identity.
> >
> >Jim

> The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
> I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
> regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
> doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel
> prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
> all human lives are of equal value.

However, there are now proposals to make murder of a Police Officer or
Emergency Worker a more serious crime.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/01/2022 23:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 16:45:52 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This vaccine is not only to protect the patient but also to contain
>> the spread of the virus -- thereby protecting even more people.
>
> It doesn't contain the spread of the virus. Vaccinated and
> unvaccinated alike can spread it.

'can' does not mean 'are just as likely to'. AIUI, the vaccinations
reduce the probability of people becoming infectious, and therefore of
transmitting the disease. They also reduce the severity of the
infection, and therefore the average time that someone is likely to be
infectious, and therefore of their transmitting the disease.

> In any case, given how infectious the latest variant of the virus is
> said to be, there's probably nothing that can contain it. We'll never
> achieve "zero covid" and will just have to live with it, as we live
> with things like the flu and the common cold. All the isolation,
> quarantining and "social distancng" (i.e. antisocial distancing) could
> ever achieve was to buy us some time to develop a vaccine in the hope
> that fewer people would die while we were developing it. Well, now we
> have, so those who think they can benefit from it can have it, and
> probably should (though I'm not a doctor, so if in doubt ask your own
> doctor's advice) but as with any medical treatment, it's ultimately
> their own decision.

The vaccines have a population wide role as well as an individual role.
People should have the vaccines for the benefit of everyone, including
themselves.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <59a79073d6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59a788163dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> > That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.

> That problem seems to have popped up a few times during the covid period.
> Government promises something, but then the required support isn't in
> place.

> Jim

The trouble with magicing up suitably trained staff to work in hospitals is
that there's a few years training involved. Remember that the Government (I
forget of which colour) cut back on medical school places a few years ago.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/01/2022 23:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 15:49:19 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>>> a civilised society should recognise as far as
>>>> practicable that certain entitlements, including health care, are
>>>> based not on money but on membership of the human race and nothing
>>>> else. Any abandonment of that principle leads to a very slippery
>>>> slope.
>>
>> It's not society that's abandoning that principle, but the individual
>> nutters concerned.
>
> Who do you think the nutters are, and why? I certainly haven't
> abandoned the principle described above. It's the people who think
> that entitlement to health care *should* be assigned in a
> discriminatory manner based on something other than simple humanity
> who appear to have abandoned it. Maybe "nutters" isn't the best
> description for such people, but they certainly deserve a descriptive
> term of some sort.

An emotive argument that's fine in principle, but doesn't help in
practice. In Scotland, covid-19 hospital cases have risen by 50% over
the last week. I have a baby great-niece who has a very rare form of
eye cancer, why should her and countless blameless others' urgently
needed treatment be jeopardised by the selfishness of vaccine, social
distancing, and mask refuseniks unnecessarily and avoidably filling up
hospitals?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/01/2022 10:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 07:49:34 +0000, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 00:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> You get the same penalty for murdering anyone
>>
>> If "Life" meant "Whole life" then I would agree with you. But look at
>> the sentences given where "Whole life is a rare exception (despite the
>> Government's promise to the people protesting against the removal of the
>> death penalty that "whole life would be the norm) and the relatives of
>> the murder victim might see an "eligible for parole" tariff of anything
>>from 7 years upwards, and some murderers are released with a new and
>> secret identity.
>>
>> Jim
>
> The practical application of the penalty is not relevant to the point
> I was making, which is that murder is regarded as the same crime,
> regardless of any characteristic of whoever you've murdered. It
> doesn't matter whether they're a homeless junkie prostitute or a Nobel
> prizewinner, murder is murder, so the law works on the principle that
> all human lives are of equal value.
>
> Rod.

However, the less significant the murder victim, the shorter the tariff
on average, so not all people murdered get the same outcome. It is the
same crime on the statute book, but the treatment of the murderer has
some relationship with the victim.

It is the way the law is treated generally. Theft is theft, but if
someone steals £50,000 in cash the punishment tends to be heavier than
if someone steals a car worth £50,000, and it is different still if
someone claims £50,000 in benefits they are not entitled to and then
gets found out.

The mantra that everybody is equal in the eyes of the law is a crowd
pleaser that is not borne out in real life.

Jim

On 09/01/2022 11:00, charles wrote:
> In article<59a79073d6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article<59a788163dcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
>> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>> That's easy - no staff. You can't just magic staff our of thin air.
>
>> That problem seems to have popped up a few times during the covid period.
>> Government promises something, but then the required support isn't in
>> place.
>
>> Jim
>
> The trouble with magicing up suitably trained staff to work in hospitals is
> that there's a few years training involved. Remember that the Government (I
> forget of which colour) cut back on medical school places a few years ago.
>
Even that was a new policy designed to do away with the previously
normal nurse training which was based on a sandwich course of
apprenticeship coupled with classroom teaching. That model required
residential accommodation for trainee nurses because the practical work
was any shift times in any ward, and these unsocial hours needed trainee
accommodation. By changing the training into a type of university
course, all the land and buildings for accommodating the nurse
apprentices could be sold off. And they were, so that the money thus
released could fund the more expensive running costs of the hospitals
built under the PPI schemes.

With the apprentice model, there would have been a large pool of
partially trained staff, and that would have made a significant
difference to the staffing levels available during the pandemic.

Jim