Connect with us

World

Coronavirus: UK made serious mistake over border policy, say MPs

Published

on

Coronavirus: UK made serious mistake over border policy, say MPs

Masked passengers arriving at Gatwick airport

Picture copyright
PA Media

Advertisement

The unfold of coronavirus within the UK might have been slowed with earlier quarantine restrictions on arrivals, a bunch of MPs has stated.

The House Affairs committee stated an absence of border measures earlier within the pandemic was a “serious mistake”.

It added ministers had underestimated the specter of importing the virus from Europe versus Asia.

Advertisement

However a House Workplace spokeswoman stated the committee had been “incorrect of their assertions”.

She added: “All of our selections all through the pandemic have been guided by the science, with acceptable measures launched on the proper time to maintain us all protected.”

Of their report, the committee backed a call to not shut the UK’s borders within the early phases of the disaster, given the “giant quantity” of returning British nationals.

Advertisement

‘Inexplicable’

However it added {that a} requirement for individuals arriving from sure nations to quarantine, launched in early June, ought to have are available earlier.

Since then, these arriving within the UK must self-isolate for 14 days or face the specter of fines, with every of the UK’s 4 nations compiling an inventory of exempted countries the place this doesn’t apply.

Throughout February and early March, all passengers from Hubei Province in China and sure areas of South Korea, in addition to Iran and later Italy, had been asked to self-isolate for 14 days on arrival.

Advertisement

The MPs criticised a call to not embrace Spain on this early checklist, including that authorities recommendation had initially centered on Asian nations and didn’t “recognise quickly sufficient” the chance of importing the virus from Europe.

They added {that a} later determination – on 13 March – to finish self-isolation recommendation for worldwide arrivals not displaying signs had been “inexplicable”.

The House Workplace stated this recommendation was changed by steerage advising all individuals within the UK, together with arrivals, to self-isolate in the event that they developed signs.

Advertisement

‘Serious error’

Citing proof from scientific research, the MPs stated it was possible that 1000’s of contaminated individuals then arrived within the UK earlier than full lockdown got here in 10 days later.

“It’s extremely possible that this contributed to the fast improve within the unfold of the virus in mid-March and to the general scale of the outbreak within the UK,” they added.

“The failure correctly to contemplate the opportunity of imposing stricter necessities on these arriving – corresponding to necessary self-isolation, elevated screening, focused testing or enforceable quarantine – was a serious error.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

That is the second Parliamentary report in per week that is accused the federal government of serious errors. Final week’s criticised how hospital sufferers had been discharged to care houses and not using a Covid check.

That and right this moment’s report quantity to the identical accusation – poor or inexplicable selections that did not assist gradual the march of the pandemic.

Advertisement

The MPs cite examples from around the globe the place nations had been requiring passengers arriving in that nation to adjust to stringent quarantine or monitoring measures.

The federal government insists that its common message from 13 March to the general public to remain at dwelling, if that they had signs, labored.

However that suggestion was not the identical as clear steerage, or an absolute authorized requirement, for passengers to self-isolate even when they had been feeling completely nicely.

Advertisement

And that, say the MPs, meant travellers in March had been in a position to arrive and transfer about way more freely at a important second within the unfold of the virus throughout the UK.

Advertisement

The committee added that the choice to withdraw self-isolation recommendation was “very completely different from nations in related circumstances”.

It concluded that nations that as an alternative launched harder border measures, corresponding to Singapore, had been “proved justified in doing so”.

It stated an official estimate used to justify the UK’s method – stating that solely 0.5% of home infections had been imported from abroad – was not calculated till late March.

Advertisement

However the MPs level out that the proportion of instances was prone to have been “considerably larger” when blanket quarantine recommendation was lifted earlier that month.

They backed the necessary quarantine guidelines launched in June, and stated ministers ought to think about better testing of arrivals on the UK’s borders.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chairs the committee and is a former shadow dwelling secretary, stated the dearth of stronger quarantine guidelines in March “did make the epidemic worse”.

She stated the brand new steerage launched in mid-March “did not cowl anyone who was asymptomatic, anyone who wasn’t certain what the signs had been”.

“At a time when different nations had been introducing stronger border measures, the UK was lifting them,” she informed BBC Radio 4’s At the moment programme.

Advertisement

“We have seen no science behind that call in any respect – and it is that lack of science, lack of transparency that is so regarding”.

‘Handiest’

However a House Workplace spokeswoman stated the federal government had adopted the scientific recommendation.

“And with passengers numbers considerably lowered, the scientific recommendation was clear that quarantine measures for these coming into the nation from overseas could be handiest when the UK has a decrease stage of an infection,” she added.

Advertisement

“Due to this fact, because the virus was introduced beneath management right here, border measures had been launched on eight June to guard public well being and assist keep away from a second peak that might overwhelm the NHS.”

Source Link

Advertisement

Passionate news enthusiast with a flair for words. Our Editorial Team author brings you the latest updates, in-depth analysis, and engaging stories. Stay informed with their well-researched articles.

World

Alaska $1300 Stimulus Check May 2024 – Stimulus Checks for Everyone? Payment Dates & Eligibility

Published

on

Alaska $1300 Stimulus Check May 2024 – Stimulus Checks for Everyone? Payment Dates & Eligibility

Citizens of Alaska are going to receive an important stimulus check which will alleviate to a large extent their financial woes.

The $1300 Stimulus Check May program is a courtesy by the state’s Permanent Fund Dividend. It will be a great support for the residents of Alaska in their difficult times.

The Alaskan support program has been rolled out to reduce the financial difficulties of the people of Alaska who are finding it difficult to meet their basic expenses. The $1,300 stimulus check which will be rolled out in May 2024 is open for all Alaska permanent residents who do not have any recent criminal records and meet the eligibility requirements.

Advertisement

The stimulus checks are aimed to improve the quality of life of residents of the state of Alaska by affording financial security and enabling them to get essential support when they need it most. The eligible candidates are advised to visit the official website of the Alaska Revenue Department to get to know about the latest updates.

Alaska $1300 Stimulus Check May 2024

$1300 Stimulus Check May 2024 is a gift from the Alaska Revenue Department to enable the eligible residents of Alaska to get vital and much needed support during the time of financial crisis. The project is especially beneficial for persons who are finding it difficult to pay for their bills and facing a financial emergency. The stimulus will serve as a timely infusion of funds that will reduce their burdens.

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend 2024

Article$1300 Stimulus Check May 2024
DepartmentDepartment of Revenue, Alaska
Benefit NamePermanent Fund Dividend
Amount$1300
Applicable inAlaska, USA
Payment DateMay 2024
CategoryGovernment Aid
Official Websitehttps://pfd.alaska.gov/

$1300 Stimulus Check May 2024 Latest Update

The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) website has stated that eligible Alaskans can hope to get their next stimulus payments on 16th May 2024. The program is a part of the financial support initiative launched for the state of Alaska by the Government of America and the funds are channeled via the Permanent Fund Dividend program, which is managed by the Alaska Department of Revenue.

Advertisement

Citizens can check their eligibility status on the official website from 8th May 2024 and in case their claim is marked as “eligible-not-paid,” they can expect to get the money directly into their Bank accounts on the specified dates. Citizens are encouraged to visit the Permanent Fund Dividend’s official website for more information and updates.

Also Read: New Hampshire Is Raising Legal Age Of Marriage To 18 Without Exceptions

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

New Hampshire Is Raising Legal Age Of Marriage To 18 Without Exceptions

Published

on

New Hampshire Is Raising Legal Age Of Marriage To 18 Without Exceptions

The New Hampshire House has passed a bill to raise the minimum age for marriage from the present 16 years to 18 years without any exceptions. The bill, which has been designated as SB 359, will now be sent to the Governor for his signature.

If approved by the Governor, New Hampshire will become the 12th state to have a law that bans marriage under the age of 18 with no exceptions.

New Hampshire To Raise Minimum Marriage Age to 18

The New Hampshire House voted 192-174 to pass the bill SB 359 on Thursday, raising the legal age for marriage from 16 years to 18 years. The bill has a long and eventful history and has been sent to Gov. Chris Sununu for approval.

Advertisement

Bill 359 clearly states that

“no person below the age of 18 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.”

Presently, the legal age for marriage is 16 years.

The bill will also nullify the current legal options for minors to marry.

Advertisement

The current laws, RSA 457:6, permit parents and guardians of persons between 16 and 18 to approach a family court to grant permission for the marriage.

The petition also requires the involvement of the Division for Children, Youth, and Families and allows the court to interview with each minor getting married without their parents present. SB 359 would eliminate this process.

If the law is signed by the governor, it will make New Hampshire one of 12 states that have banned marriage under 18 with no exceptions. The other states which have such a law in place include Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York.

Advertisement

Maine permits marriage for 16- and 17-year-olds with written consent from their parents, legal guardians, or custodians. However, this will become nullified in New Hampshire if SB 359 becomes law.

The bill was advocated for years by Rep. Cassandra Levesque, a Barrington Democrat. In 2018, the idea of raising the marriage age to 18 years from the then stipulated 14 years was first proposed by Levesque, then 19 and not yet a state representative. However, the House and Senate Republicans agreed to pass a bill to raise it to 16 instead. Levesque won her first election to the House and continued to advocate raising the marriage age to 18 years.

Levesque argued that raising the marriage age will prevent situations that can be exploited by others.

Advertisement

Levesque, in the House Calendar introducing SB 359, said,

“The committee found that this bill is important to be in law because we know that age of majority does not amount to maturity, and that there is a greater risk of human trafficking and domestic violence without these protections.”

However, the bill was opposed by Republican lawmakers. Rep. Margaret Drye, a Plainfield Republican, argued that the marriage was a beneficial option for those under 18 in certain circumstances like an unexpected pregnancy.

Also Read: Ontario Sunshine List 2024 Reveals Why People Can’t Afford To Buy A Home

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Ontario Sunshine List 2024 Reveals Why People Can’t Afford To Buy A Home

Published

on

Ontario’s Sunshine List Reveals Why People Can’t Afford To Buy A Home

Ontario Sunshine List is released every year and it reveals the salaries of public sector workers who take home a salary in excess of $100,000. This year the list features 300,570 names which is 30,000 higher than last year of public sector employees with salaries over $100,000. The Ontario Sunshine list also features five employees working at the Ontario Power Generation who are among the top 10 earners with the province’s highest salary nearing $2 million.

Ontario had passed the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act in 1996 under the Mike Harris government and the stated aim of the act was to make the government more transparent and accountable. The $100,000 limit was a big deal then.

However the $100,000 in 1996 in relative terms in 2024 will be equivalent to $180,564.97. If you remove 300,570 people on this year’s Ontario Sunshine List for that salary threshold there you drop 279,781 names. In other words there will be many people who will not be able to own a house without help from family or an inheritance.

Advertisement

In a nutshell it means that employees who take home a six figure salary package will still feel the pinch of Canada’s affordability crisis. The soaring inflation and rising cost of living a $100,000 salary doesn’t guarantee financial security in many parts of the country.

Also, to maintain the $100,000 threshold today, the province should have adjusted it to $55,381.73 in 1996. Ontario has fixed a threshold of $100,000, while the threshold varies in other provinces. Alberta, for example, has set a threshold of $125,888 for government employees and $150,219 for people in public sector bodies.

Not much information is available for the federal government, but a Canadian Taxpayers Federation access-to-information request revealed that 110,593 employees in the federal public service earned $100,000 or more in 2023.

There are a couple of options for Ontario and other governments with non-indexing disclosure requirements. Resetting the threshold to a number that makes more sense today and then continuing to index the threshold going forward seems feasible.

Advertisement

We also don’t need to reveal the names of all individuals. The government could report aggregated salary ranges by job title rather than disclosing specific names below a second, lower threshold. This would maintain government accountability and transparency by still disclosing who the highest earners are.

As it stands, we have a list that publishes the names and salaries of potentially hundreds of thousands of people who could not afford to buy a house. This doesn’t seem aligned with the original intent of the disclosure act.

Some features of the Ontario Sunshine List 2024 are as follows:

  • The highest paid employee took a pay check of $1.9M
  • Public sector employees were paid salaries in excess of $100K
  • The Ontario Sunset list top position is held by Kenneth Hartwick, CEO of the electricity Crown Corporation with a salary of $1.93 million followed by chief strategy officer Dominique Miniere $1.2 million and chief projects officer Michael Martelli drawing $1 million as salary.
  • Public sector workers were paid counting in Bill 124 compensation
  • 2024 budget revealed that Ontario deficit will triple
  • CEOs of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University Health Network figured in the top 10 list and each drew a salary of $850,000 each while CEO of the provincial transit agency, Metrolinx drew a salary of $838,097.
  • 17 professors or associate professors at the University of Toronto drew a salary in excess of $500,000

Caroline Mulroney, president of the Treasury Board, stated in a release,

“The largest year-over-year increases were in the hospitals, municipalities, and services, and post-secondary sectors, which together represented approximately 80 percent of the growth of the list.”

Also Read: Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum Says Wants to Hire Student Protesters Backlash Underway

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

This will close in 5 seconds