Item 1, from the BBC:
People who believe the myths spread by anti-vaccine campaigners "are absolutely wrong", England's top doctor has said. Prof Dame Sally Davies said the MMR vaccine was safe and had been given to millions of children worldwide but uptake was currently "not good enough"...
"A number of people, stars, believe these myths - they are wrong," she said, "Over these 30 years, we have vaccinated millions of children. It is a safe vaccination - we know that - and we've saved millions of lives across the world. People who spread these myths, when children die they will not be there to pick up the pieces or the blame."
Uptake of the MMR vaccine had reached a good level in previous years but has now dropped back to 87%.
"That means a lot of protection but it doesn't give us herd immunity," Dame Sally said. "So when people from abroad have been coming in, travelling infected, it is spreading into our local communities."
I'll mark her down for the platitude 'local communities', apart from that, agreed.
Item 2, also from the BBC:
Chief Constable Sara Thornton said forces were too stretched to deal with "deserving" issues, such as logging gender-based hate incidents... She called for a "refocus on core policing".
Ms Thornton told police chiefs and police and crime commissioners: "We are asked to provide more and more bespoke services that are all desirable - but the simple fact is there are too many desirable and deserving issues."
She added: "Neither investigating gender-based hate crime or investigating allegations against those who have died are necessarily bad things - I just argue that they cannot be priorities for a service that is over-stretched."
... Since 2010 police chiefs say funding in England and Wales has decreased, in real terms, by nearly a fifth, and there are 20,000 fewer officers.
Spot on. It's not hard to understand, is it?
It's third time unlucky though:
Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott said forces could not do "more with less". Police should not have to "pick and choose" between crimes, and if misogyny was made a hate crime the government must provide the funding to tackle it, she added.
-----------------------------
UPDATE. Jonathan Bagley in the comments:
I know that there are many ways of recording crime and new crimes are being invented, but according to the crime survey, crime has fallen from a peak of 19 million offences in 1995 to 6 million offences in 2016. Doesn't that alone suggest we need fewer police? I've heard no mention of this.
I live in a small town in the North of England. In the early 90s there were more break-ins, more car crime and huge amount more drunken vandalism and criminal damage. Crime now, apart from some drug dealing, seems virtually non-existent and this is not a wealthy middle-class place.
Agreed, crime has been on a downward trend in developed countries for centuries. Steven Pinker has made a career out of reporting this. This has been particularly noticeable over the last few decades, when those born before they stopped putting lead in petrol had passed prime crime-committing age (allegedly, but it's the best explanation we have).
But:
a) However much - or little - crime there is, there is always too much, from the point of view of victims.
b) The economic optimum level of crime/policing is where £1 extra spent on police reduces the total cost of crime by £1, spend any more and it's money wasted. But it's difficult to measure or value distress, worry, trauma etc (the bulk of the true cost of crime), so best go on the safe side.
c) We have got softer as we have become more civilised. A few centuries ago, if somebody was murdered, it was just bad luck and few people cared too much, widow or widower remarried and moved on. Nowadays, it's a heck of a blow to a large number of relatives, friends and colleagues. So the "cost" of crime might be going up even if the absolute number of crimes is going down.
d) The Tories have been reducing police budgets and numbers too far, too fast, and/or encouraging them to focus on non-crimes as listed by Ms Thornton. There does appear to have been an increase in crime rates over the past few years - especially in London which has had a particularly right-on Mayor - bucking the long term trend.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
10 hours ago
11 comments:
Big thumbs up for the second comment. I assume she isn't a Common Purpose puppet which is very unusual for Plod these days.
I know that there are many ways of recording crime and new crimes are being invented, but according to the crime survey, crime has fallen from a peak of 19 million offences in 19995 to 6 million offences in 2016. Doesn't that alone suggest we need fewer police? I've heard no mention of this. I live in a small town in the North of England. In the early 90s there were more break-ins, more car crime and huge amount more drunken vandalism and criminal damage. Crime now, apart from some drug dealing, seems virtually non-existent and this is not a wealthy middle-class place.
M, ta.
JB, see update for my full reply.
"Chief Constable Sara Thornton said ... Since 2010 police chiefs say funding in England and Wales has decreased, in real terms, by nearly a fifth, and there are 20,000 fewer officers."
I agree with her about "PC" policing but I wonder why they only ever go back as far as 2010 when discussing the drop in police numbers. Could it be because there was an increase of about 20,000 in police numbers between 2000 and 2010?
Lies, damn lies, etc.
F, I've checked and your assumption is correct. That said, police budget is about £450 per household, I wouldn't mind if they bumped it up by twenty percent, looks like good value to me.
Depends where the money's going. Police people are vastly expensive individuals when you take in the cost of their generous pension scheme, which for some officers has allowed retirement on full defined benefits at 48 (entry 18 + 30 years service). The current schemes are slightly less generous but funding retirement for someone in their fifties with index linking, widow's benefits, etc etc is colossally expensive, requiring a pension fund significantly into seven figures. Or, indemnifying by the taxpayer.
The anti-vacc folk should all have to send their kids to a special school. It would be tragic but an outbreak of measles in a largely unvaccinated school would cure most of the parents of their misinformed beliefs
Mombers,
I went to boarding school in the days before widespread vaccination for Measles Mumps or Rubella. Every year, in the spring, we had what we called "the Plague" when half the school went down with something. Nobody died, or was even seriously ill. I got rubella, but missed out on mumps and measles. My mother reckoned that I'd somehow acquired immunity without really getting the diseases.
I went to boarding school too, one guy had to sent home when a mumps outbreak happened because he only had one testicle and was at much higher risk of mumps induced infertility...
M, good idea.
B, I had mumps and it wasn't so bad. I had chicken pox, can't remember having measles. But that's not the point here.
Mark, I was replying to M's comment "It would be tragic but an outbreak of measles in a largely unvaccinated school would cure most of the parents of their misinformed beliefs" by pointing out that that was precisely what happened at my school, it wasn't tragic and it didn't alter my mother's anti-vaccinating beliefs one little bit, she still thought that the same diseases were worth vaccinating against and the same ones weren't.
Post a Comment