A Study Of The Obvious

On Monday, The Conservative Review posted an article about a Covid-related study in Scotland.

The article reports:

While it’s obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, it’s nice to see a Scottish government-sanctioned inquiry raise concerns about the way nursing home patients were treated during the pandemic. A new 143-page report published by Edinburgh Napier University on behalf of the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry found that the severe lockdown of senior care home residents “caused great distress and is likely to have contributed in a number of cases to cognitive and emotional decline and even death.”

“The rights of those in care home and their visitors should not have been disproportionately impacted during the pandemic,” observes the inquiry regarding the violation of human rights and the lack of proportionality in attempting to shield seniors in care from the virus. “Any restriction of visiting rights must therefore have been kept under constant review throughout, assessed on an individual basis and in light of the prevailing situation regarding the pandemic in Scotland with clear and updated guidance being provided.”

The article notes:

Given the high rate of senior care COVID deaths, there really is no evidence that any of these measures worked. But the inquiry does note that the extreme isolation likely hastened the deaths of many people. “There is substantial evidence of the harm and distress caused to residents and their families by the restrictions imposed in care homes. This includes concerns that, particularly for people with dementia, being unable to maintain contact with their family exacerbated cognitive and emotional decline, potentially hastening their death.”

The report cites the heartbreaking examples detailed by a petition to the Scottish parliament by families of senior care residents:

    • Daughters were forced to watch from a distance as carers held a dying mother’s hand.
    • Elderly husbands peered through windows to see their distressed wives reaching out for a familiar touch.
    • Children and young adults were left distraught and with no comprehension as to why they were “abandoned” by their family.
    • The use of prison-style screens and intercom communication was cold, unfeeling, and gave no comfort.
    • iPads and online communication were impossible for the many residents with no understanding of Zoom calls or Facetime.

At the same time these draconian measures were put in place regarding visitors and family members, a number of states were sending Covid-positive patients from hospitals to nursing homes when they were still contagious. We need a study of not only the impact of the isolation of the elderly in nursing homeso, but also of the introduction of Covid-positive patients into nursing homes.

A Question I Would Like Answered

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article yesterday about an 82-year-old Scottish Grandmother who asked a question that I think all of us should be asking.

The article reports:

An 82-year-old grandmother has been fined £60 for attending a seven-person lockdown-breaching 70th birthday bash – even though every person there was fully vaccinated.

Maureen Hogg, from Eaglesham, East Renfrewshire, was given the notice for antisocial behaviour after police broke up the celebration. 

All seven attendees received a fine for £60, even though each one of them had both doses of the Covid-19 jab.

The article quotes the million-dollar question:

Ms Hogg’s granddaughter Daisy Hogg, 17, said her grandmother questioned ‘why she needs to shield if she has the vaccine’.

If the vaccine works, what is the problem?

The article includes the following:

A Police Scotland spokesperson said: ‘We were called around 9pm on Sunday, 11 April, 2021 following a reported breach of coronavirus regulations at a property on Kirkton Drive, Eaglesham.

‘Officers attended, spoke to those involved and seven fixed penalty notices were issued.’

Have we reached the point where neighbors are tattling on neighbors? If so, I think we need to rethink this whole coronavirus thing.

However You Feel About The Results, The Turnout Was Impressive

Yesterday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about the rejection of separating from the United Kingdom by the voters of Scotland. In his article, Mr. Mirengoff refers to a previous article in which he listed his reasons for supporting Scottish independence. In that previous article, he points out that the majority of the people who represent Scotland in Parliament are Labor Party members. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the Labor Party would have a difficult time forming future governments in England.

Fox News reported on the referendum today. In an 85 percent voter turnout, Scots voted 55 percent to 45 to say with the United Kingdom.

Fox News reports:

Many saw it as a “heads versus hearts” campaign, with cautious older Scots concluding that independence would be too risky financially, while younger ones were enamored with the idea of building their own country.

The result saves Cameron from a historic defeat and also helps opposition chief Ed Miliband by keeping his many Labour Party lawmakers in Scotland in place. His party would have found it harder to win a national election in 2015 without that support from Scotland.

For his part, Cameron — aware that his Conservative Party is widely loathed in Scotland – had previously begged voters not to use a vote for independence as a way to bash his party.

The vote against independence keeps the U.K. from losing a substantial part of its territory and oil reserves and prevents it from having to find a new base for its nuclear arsenal, now housed in Scotland. It had also faced a possible loss of influence within international institutions including the 28-nation European Union and the United Nations.

The decision also means Britain can avoid a prolonged period of financial insecurity that had been predicted by some if Scotland broke away.

I am sure this issue will come up again in the future, but for now the United Kingdom is intact and has avoided the chaos and political turmoil that would have come with Scottish independence.

Whoops!

Wattsupwiththat is reporting today that glaciers are appearing in Scotland.

The article quotes the BBC:

“Hazards common in arctic and alpine areas but described as “extremely unusual” in the UK during the summer have been found on Ben Nevis.

A team of climbers and scientists investigating the mountain’s North Face said snowfields remained in many gullies and upper scree slopes.

On these fields, they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.

Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.”

The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.

This is how ice ages start–the snow does not melt in the summer, and the growing ice sheet reflects more sunlight back into space instead of absorbing it. As the cycle continues, the earth gets colder. So much for global warming.

Greedy Governments Profit From The Success Of People They Actually Have No Connection To

Over taxation is a worldwide problem. It seems as if anytime anyone does something extremely well and reaps a large financial reward, the vultures start circling.

One of the more recent examples of the vultures circling was reported in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. The article reported on the recent golfing victories of Phil Mickelson. Phil Mickelson earned more than $2.16 million in just two weeks.

The article reports:

According to Forbes, Mickelson has been subjected to the United Kingdom’s 45 percent tax rate for those who make more than £150,000 a year. In addition, the magazine reports, he will be taxed on a portion of the endorsement income he earned during his time in Scotland.

While Mickelson can take a foreign tax credit to avoid being taxed again by the U.S. government, he still has to pay self-employment taxes, the new Medicare surtax, and hand over 13.3 percent of his wages to the state of California, which does not have a foreign tax credit, Forbes reported.

To put it simply, Phil Mickelson gets to take home 39 per cent of what he earned. Out of 2.16 million, it is estimated that he will take home $842,700. I don’t care how much you are into class envy, that seems a little unfair. He earned it, why should everyone else reap the benefits?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Perspective On National Healthcare

This morning while perusing the Wall Street Journal, I came across an article that caused me to pause for a moment. It had to do with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who died in Libya on Sunday. Mr. al-Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland three years ago when doctors declared that he had only three months to live (he was suffering from prostate cancer).

The article reports:

Karol Sikora, a leading cancer specialist who examined Megrahi shortly before his release, explains that predicting how long a patient with end-stage prostate cancer has to live is a  “value judgment of probablility,” not an exact science. But Dr. Sikora also writes that his initial three-month prognosis was “based on his treatment as an NHS patient in Glasgow at the time, when not even standard docetaxel chemotherapy was offered.” by contrast, “Mr. Megrahi almost certainly had excellent care in Tripoli.”

The article further points out that “standard docetaxel chemotherapy”  did become available to some Scottish patients in certain circumstances in 2006, but was not available to Megrahi. When Megrahi arrived in Libya, he received advanced chemotherapy as well as abiraterone, a drug approved by U. S. regulators in 2011.  The treatment he received in Libya is still largely unavailable through the British medical system, although next year abiraterone will be available to the English and Welsh (but not in Scotland due to the price).

The article concludes:

Prime Minister David Cameron has often said that Megrahi should never have been released, and that’s right. But perhaps the Libyan’s longevity should spark a different line of questioning: whether the most compassionate aspect of his release was freeing him from government health care–and whether nonterrorists deserve similar succor.

Something to think about as the Supreme Court debates Obamacare…

Enhanced by Zemanta