Grumbles from the Pulpit: That was the Week that Was!

Looking back at the week!

French trifles.

At the annual Normandy Summit in Caen, the Minister for External Relations was joined by representatives from Normandy, La Manche, and Guernsey, including the President of the Normandy region, Hervé Morin, the President of La Manche, Jean Morin, and Guernsey’s External Affairs Minister, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq. The Chief Minister, Deputy Kristina Moore, joined remotely from Jersey.

Philip Ozouf got some critical comments for being physically present. I disagree with that criticism. . I've been recently looking at a practice management system, and the preliminary meetings showed us the system using Teams. The recent one took place in our boardroom - all kind of nuances from body language and the ease to put in questions (and get them answered) and the ability hence to interact far better is when you are present rather than face to face. It also allows, in the case of Philip Ozouf, for more general ex-meeting social chit chat which can also help political relationships with others. That behind the scenes work can also help the official meetings. Face to face also means you can easily see all the expressions on people, and react far better to circumstances.

Meteoric!

The Orionids are back! Shooting stars are debris from comets - Halley's comet in this case with the Orionids, and often no larger than toner dust to grains of sand. Their speed is huge, but if you put it as miles per second, average is 40 miles per second, which is roughly the distance from St Catherine's Breakwater to St Anne's Alderney - covered in one second! Beats rush hour traffic!

Covid cases.

School cases are not currently being updated on a weekly basis. But here's the results from an FOI.

Political Apologies

And finally, I saw Gavin St Pier's piece in the Friday JEP  had "Liz Truss, who is Prime Minister at the time this piece was written." But he raises an interesting point: when do politicians apologise for U-Turns or just getting it wrong? I can think of very few. John Rothwell apologised (and was in tears) over the Beauport potato dump fiasco. Philip Ozouf did apologise over breaking a promise not to raise GST to 5% from 3%. But plenty didn't.

Alan Maclean over the £200,000 given to a bogus film company
Terry le Sueur over the golden handshake given to Bill Ogley
Terry Le Main over breaking Data Protection rules
Members of the States Employment board for persistently ignoring the Complains Committee's review of cases.
Andrew Lewis for lying to the States, the Care Inquiry and PPC.
And I'm sure you could add many more.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: A Case of Deju Vue - Civil Servants and Private Pay

A Case of Deja Vue

BBC news reported on the following UK scandal:

A top civil servant joined financial firm Greensill Capital as an adviser while still working for the government, a lobbying watchdog has revealed. Bill Crothers's part-time position had been "agreed" to by the Cabinet Office, the Office of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments added.(1)

Of course that is very much like the Charlie Parker Affair - known and given the nod by the Chief Minister - until it became public knowledge. And likewise, the Daily Mail asked of Mr Crother how he found the time for the extra job when he was supposed to be busy working for the government in a very demanding post. 

City AM had this report:

Former Home Office permanent secretary Sir David Normington said that he was “absolutely amazed” that a top civil servant was permitted to work as a part-time adviser at Greensill Capital while still in Whitehall. Asked about the Bill Crothers case, Sir David told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme today: “Well actually, when I heard it, I thought it was absolutely baffling. I’ve never come across anything like it in my over 40 years in Whitehall.” “I’m absolutely amazed that Bill Crothers should be allowed to work for Greensill while he was still in the civil service,” he added.

Over here, we had a backhand attempt led by the Chief for SEB to retrospectively approve the post, while one of those soulless minions of orthodoxy, a "Government spokesperson", came up with a bland, unsatisfying declaration:

A Government spokesperson said there were “no contractual restrictions on the Chief Executive accepting such a role."

Meanwhile, over there, Government departments have been ordered to find out by the end of the week whether senior officials have rule-breaking second jobs. The BBC reports that:

Cabinet Secretary Simon Case has asked colleagues to declare paid roles or outside interests that "might conflict" with Civil Service rules. He said the need to give civil servants the chance to gain experience life outside Whitehall has been "recognised for many decades by successive governments".  "But this must only be done in a way which can maintain the integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service," he wrote. 
He added: "In particular, there needs to be transparency and full and proper management of any outside interests."

Transparency was singularly lacking over in Jersey!

Political Scandals and Skeletons in the Cupboard

The latest page filler in the JEP regarding Deputy Kevin Pamplin (36 at the time) and a 16 year old girl (at the time, now around 20 years old) does not reflect well on the Deputy. I noticed that his manifesto stated that he was a "father of two" in 2018, but not that he was still married.

This raises the question of how much a private life should be public for a politician, and what effect, if any, it has on their political career. The woman in question asks for his resignation, and yet while unseemly, and she was not under age at the time, as is clear from the printed exchanges. 

Legally it is not chargeable or a resigning offense under Jersey election law, but next year obviously the public can decide for themselves.How much is flirting, and how much is rather more predatory is something voters will have to decide for themselves.

I remember two Deputies who had an affair, and one resigned as President of Education - before the affair become public knowledge, as he probably felt this would not set a good example, especially where sex education was concerned. 

Times are also changing, and even over four years, it hass become clear that more people are trying to carefully navigate the line between flirting and harassment, or sexual predation. The #MeToo movement has forced society to become more aware and sensitive to sexual ethics in our everyday interactions.

This is a recent shift, but it has correctly placed a greater emphasis on understanding the differences between things like consent and coercion.

Our Great British Empire

And finally, Sir Stephen Dalton, Lt-Governor of Jersey, clearly channelling the wit of the late Duke of Edinburgh in his tribute on Channel Television:

"The Duke paid keen attention to Jersey and the Crown Dependencies, and of course to the rest of our Great British Empire"

I like to think that the Duke would have been quietly amused!

References:

(1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56733465

(2) https://www.cityam.com/greensill-job-allowed-bill-crothers-to-evade-scrutiny-says-former-home-office-official/

(3) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56751997

Grumbles from the Pulpit

 

Fisheries Stocks: Too Extended a Deadline

You know things are bad when they make the national press. The Times reported that:

"French fishermen have been accused of “decimating” the Jersey coastline as they increase dredging before the post-Brexit amnesty ends at the end of this month. French boats spotted off the island’s coast this week are destroying the seabed with unsustainable 'industrial fishing methods', according to Don Thompson, president of the Jersey Fishermen’s Association."

We have been here before, albeit in different circumstances. When a deadline was given for hospitality before the Christmas lockdown, the pups were heaving with people to take advantage of the time they had. When a deadline was given for non-essential shops to close at 6 pm on Christmas Eve, the town was thronged with shoppers, regardless of the risks of Covid. 

The general rule is this: give a group of people enough of a deadline, and they will make maximum advantage of it for themselves. And this is what we can now see played out with the fishing by French trawlers. If it is not stopped effectively and quickly enough, fish stocks will be so depleted they will take a decade to recover.

Much of this comes down to the way the External Relations Minister has tried to negotiate with the French, to smooth access to French ports for Jersey boats. There's an old saying "he who sups with the devil needs a long spoon", and it looks as if Senator Gorst has been using a tea-spoon in this instance.

Gorst's Last Stand

Senator Gorst aided by Senator Farnham have made a last minute bid to keep the Senators. Now an Island wide mandate is a good thing, and of course they have that in plenty in Guernsey, which somehow managed to make it work, something Deputy Russell Labey seems to have thought impossible. But this isn't that - it's retaining the Senators. 

There's something to be said for it, if the Chief Minister is drawn from the ranks of Senators, it means everyone has the chance to vote on the past record of a Chief Minister. Of all those so far, only Senator Gorst has faced the ballot box - and survived. 

We may move to troubled times if we end up with a Deputy in a district over which we have no sway, elected as Chief Minister, when on an Island wide mandate, they might fall.  This means that asking the question of candidates on whom might be suitable for Chief Minister will become ever more important, but of course, expect a lot of fudging going on. 

The only good point is that thanks to Deputy Trevor Pitman's proposition, we can at least see if someone said something, and changed their mind once elected. Barefaced lying is now exposed. But they may just be non-committal and say "wait and see".

Obviously party politics of some kind may make that easier - if we know beforehand who is likely to be the next Chief Minister from amongst the party. So the two new parties need to decide beforehand who will be their "leader" should the opportunity arise for a party to have a significant impact on the next Chief Minister.

Historically, parties in the UK took ages to grow, and broke apart and reformed on several occasions, and I think it would be extraordinary if Jersey's suddenly sprung into being over a short period of time. That may not even happen. Despite there being 4 active political parties in the Isle of Man, as at March 2020, all members of both branches of Tynwald were independents. When parties have existed, they have been in the minority, and government is more by consent that adversarial party politics.

Housing Market and the Limits to Growth

There's a need for new housing, the housing market is stagnating - just a few of the headlines hitting the news recently. But the need for new housing is driven in part by an ever increasing population. Back in the days when Paul Routier was a Senator in the States, I remember him telling me that we needed to increase the population to increase the support for an aging population. That's like a Ponzi scheme, applied to population, but it seems to resurface, even if implicitly.

Increases in population need to be tied to the demands on infrastructure. Our water supply is perilously close to failing and requiring rationing, because the population has grown so much, and the changing climate pattern means longer periods of drought. So far, we have been lucky, but don't expect that to last. The water company has already suggested that another valley may be needed as a reservoir, and if the population goes up, it certainly will be (2). 

Dr Mark Boleat, an ardent devotee of expansion, saw no reason why Jersey should not increase as much as Hong Kong, blissfully (or deliberately) ignoring the fact that 70-80% of Hong Kong's water supply is from Guangdong, from a large river of that province. No such river or pipe supply would be possible from nearby France (3).

References:

(1) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-trawlers-decimating-stock-of-jersey-scallops-d7383cxdg

(2) https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2019-10-14/jersey-water-identifies-site-for-new-reservoir

(3) https://www.chinawaterrisk.org/resources/analysis-reviews/8-things-you-should-know-about-hong-kong-water/

Grumbles from the Pulpit: Electronic Voting in the Fullness of Time

"Indeed it is, beyond question, at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time." (Yes Prime Minister)

I'd like to award the last President of PPC, Russell Labey, the 2021 Jim Hacker Award for procrastination. I've just been reading this on the Vote.Je website and am amazed that a proposition was agreed in 2016. 

It is now 2021, just over 5 years since the proposition from Geoff Southern was passed, and "a lot of work and research needs to be done" is almost as good as the quote from Jim Hacker in "Yes Minister" above. It is preposterous that it takes five years to do.... absolutely nothing! 

Let's face it, while Russell was very keen to change the electoral districts and boot the Senators out of the States, when it came to actually introducing a better voting system... and one which would easily allow a single transferable vote, making voting far more fair, you can forget it.

Russell has now moved on to higher things. He's become a Minister. Just like Mr Hacker.

From Vote.Je

You can’t vote electronically at the current time. On the 22nd March 2016, the States agreed to an amended proposition from Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier, which asked the Privileges and Procedures Committee, together with the Comité des Connétables, and other government bodies, to research and trial electronic voting systems to introduce a safe and secure mechanism to enable eligible voters to vote electronically. We intend to amend the Law to make electronic voting possible, but online voting gives rise to concerns about the risks of electoral fraud and how the secrecy of the ballot can be guaranteed, because people will be voting outside the supervised environment of the polling station.

An alternative option would be to introduce electronic voting within polling stations. In jurisdictions where this happens, voting machines print a paper receipt every time a vote is registered electronically so that re-counts can be conducted and the electronic count can be compared with a paper count.

A lot of work and research needs to be done before we can introduce electronic voting, to be sure that any such system processes data accurately and securely and to ensure that the voting public and candidates can be confident of the integrity of the voting process.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: Safer Travel and Vaccines

I have heard some people in the hospitality industry on the news suggesting that a vaccine certificate should allow people to travel without the need for PCR tests and self-isolating until the results of the test come through.

Someone on Facebook, and this is therefore a second hand report, said that Lyndon Farnham was endorsing this in an interview on BBC Radio Jersey:

"Heard you on the radio today. Bless you, need to get your facts right..... Mr Farnham was talking about vaccine passports and didn't feel they would be used for pubs etc over here... That's fine. He DID, however, think that when incoming people were coming into Jersey, the passport would mean they didn't need a PCR test. REALLY..... I think Lyndon needs to understand that the vaccine does NOT STOP you catching COVID, it does reduce the symptoms but it can still be caught and transmitted. Please Government of Jersey, DO NOT let this happen."

I hope that Lyndon can tell me that is not the case.

So, let's have some science.

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.

This is the really important piece of science:

The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others.

Vaccines can reduce transmission, but they do not stop it. When travel comes in the 18-40s will not have been vaccinated, and even more critically, the under 18s will not. Testing is currently taking place in the USA on the under 18s, as it is important to have a vaccine roll-out which covers children as well. Before their sudden lockdown in Guernsey, at least 60% of the spread of the virus was in schools.

This means that PCR tests remain the most effective way to block importing the virus back into Jersey.

References:

NCB news notes:

Vaccines can protect against transmission by reducing a person's viral load, or how much virus is present in the body, said Dr. Becky Smith, an associate professor of medicine at Duke University.

"Theoretically, by reducing your viral load, it should prevent your ability to transmit to others," she said. "And even if it doesn't fully prevent transmission, it should lower it significantly."

Nature comments:

In February, independent data scientist Youyang Gu changed the name of his popular COVID-19 forecasting model from ‘Path to Herd Immunity’ to ‘Path to Normality’. He said that reaching a herd-immunity threshold was looking unlikely because of factors such as vaccine hesitancy, the emergence of new variants and the delayed arrival of vaccinations for children.

Gu is a data scientist, but his thinking aligns with that of many in the epidemiology community

A vaccine’s ability to block transmission doesn’t need to be 100% to make a difference. Even 70% effectiveness would be “amazing”, says Samuel Scarpino, a network scientist who studies infectious diseases at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. But there could still be a substantial amount of virus spread that would make it a lot harder to break transmission chains.

And there's a new danger from Brittany, as Euronews reports:

Now, a new strain of Sars-Cov-2 has been discovered in Brittany in western France. Eight cases have been linked to the new variant which seems to be difficult to detect by the current PCR technique in use.

CR stands for polymerase chain reaction which involves the amplification of the genome of the virus. In this case, Sars-Cov-2 is an RNA virus that is reverse transcribed into DNA and then amplified by using reagents called primers.

The primers are specific to a specific genome sequence. So if there’s a mutation in the sequence that corresponds to these primers, the PCR method just won’t work. Therefore, new PCR methods would have to be developed to target this particular strain- hence the need to develop new testing methods.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: More on Mixing Vaccines

Just read the following and wonder where is the evidence of this "endorsement" and what precisely did it say? I would like to see the documentary evidence by email or letter, with any caveats, as there appear to be plenty in the UK and elsewhere.

I'm not - please be clear - saying mixing should not take place, as the UK permits it "on extremely rare occasions". I'm just concerned that what we are being told is an "endorsement" is in fact misleading. Jersey can make a decision, but if it has any endorsement, it must be a special dispensation by the JCVI, since that is not that body's current policy.

Historically, combining doses from different vaccines is not unprecedented. For example, there have been clinical trials testing the mixing of different influenza (flu) vaccines. There are many potential benefits to being able to combine COVID-19 vaccine candidates, which is why scientists are eager for more data to evaluate this.

But studies in the UK are still under way, and not expected to be complete until the summer - although so far no adverse indications have been given, but we haven't had any reports on efficacy either.

I would also encourage anyone who can get a vaccine to get a vaccine - it is our major weapon in the fight against coronavirus.

Bailiwick Express: 8th March 2021

Mixing covid vaccines should be allowed when the same manufacturer as an individual’s first dose is unavailable, Jersey’s senior medics have decided.

The measure will mostly apply to individuals who are vaccinated at home and who received the Pfizer vaccine for their first dose, and not those who receive their vaccines in Fort Regent.

Deputy Medical Officer for Health Dr Ivan Muscat, Chief Pharmacist Paul McCabe and Associate Medical Director Dr Adrian Noon decided the measure was safe for islanders. It follows an endorsement of the approach by the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Gov.Je Information:

This delivery model will be used in low numbers in the community and will not be the model of delivery at the Vaccination Centre at Fort Regent where the transport of vaccine is not necessary.

BBC News: BMJ: 2 January 2021


The editor of the British Medical Journal has asked the New York Times to correct an article that says UK guidelines allow two Covid-19 vaccines to be mixed.Ms Godlee said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) does not make any recommendation to mix and match - in other words, having a shot of one vaccine and then a different one 12 weeks later.

Dr Mary Ramsay, Public Health England's head of immunisations, said: "We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines - if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa."

Dr Ramsay added that on the "extremely rare occasions" where the same vaccine is unavailable or it is unknown which jab the patient received, it is "better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all".

CDC: 5 March 2021

The safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.

Health Desk: 10 March 2021 (UK report)

Researchers are still learning about the outcomes of mixing a first dose of one vaccine with a second dose of another. In the clinical trials that have led to emergency authorization of COVID-19 vaccines, combining doses from different vaccines has not yet been tested. This means that scientists do not yet know if combining doses from different COVID-19 vaccine candidates will be as effective or safe.

To help provide more data, a clinical trial was announced on February 8, 2021 to begin testing the combination of one dose from the AstraZeneca vaccine candidate with one dose from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine candidate. This clinical trial, dubbed Com-Cov, is being led by the University of Oxford and is considered the first in the world to test the combination of different COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Enrollment of 820 participants over 50 years of age is starting, and scientists hope this clinical trial can provide more data and insights by the summer of 2021.

BBC: 18 March 2021

Vaccine Mixing: Nadhim Zahawi said the government's taskforce had given about £7m to fund the study, but that findings would not be available until the summer and therefore "at the moment, we're not changing anything at all"

Gov.UK: March 12 2021 - note the JCVI recommendation which is current while Jersey is saying the JCVI endorses mix and match.

Frequently asked questions answered by Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam

It is current UK policy that you will get the same type of vaccine for your first and second doses. The NHS keeps a very careful track of the type of vaccine you got the first time in the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS). When people are called back for their second dose the NIMS tells staff what vaccine to give. The NHS and PHE are managing stock levels very carefully so that the right vaccines are available locally for second doses.

JVT adds: “Please don’t worry about getting the right vaccine on your second visit. The NHS has very tight control of this and the JCVI does not currently advise mixing and matching. However, it is true that we are currently performing mix and match research studies. You are not in one of these studies unless you have volunteered and given written consent. But these studies are important and may give us greater flexibility in the long run.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: The Census

The Census - Poor Questions Part 1: Cultural or Ethnic Background

Some of the census questions seem to be poorly written. For instance, under cultural or ethnic background, we have "Asian, Asian British or Asian Jersey", but the options below don't include those and you have to answer in the text box. And then there's "Mixed" which includes "Other mixed background, write in...".

Last time I wasn't sure that cultural or ethnic background was a really solid scientific category, and this time I'm just as convinced. I know we hear in the USA, for example, of African-American as a category, but I don't think that makes a huge amount of sense in Jersey. And what precisely is "White" anyway? Do Italians or Greeks or Turks count as "White"? Do Arabs, and if not why might Israelis?

And is race actually lurking as a hidden category behind some of these supposed categories.

Kid's in the House has a clear definition of differences, and while I might not wholly agree with it, at least it provides some solid definitions:

"Culture, ethnicity and race are terms that we often confuse and think mean the same thing, but they are actually different. Culture is something we're taught by other human beings. That's how we learn culture, and generally speaking by elders. People who are older than us, that are passing something down, generation to generation. Ethnicity has to do with nationality. Where we come from, so I might be .. someone is Asian, but their different ethnicities would be a Korean person, a Chinese person, a Filipino person. All Asian, but different ethnicities. Race is the most loaded term of all. And that's because race is actually not something that's genetic, although we like to think that it is. It's something that has to do with power hierarchies. We've used race in this country to make one set of people have more privilege and power than another. And that's kind of an ugly little truth that we don't like to talk about. But the reality is race matters, and in families where we are more than one race, or raising people of color who've been in targeted groups, we have to learn to talk about this. Or we are not going to be able to learn and help children learn how to feel good about who they are, and understand that they don't have to be victims to racism."

What we have in the census is pure muddle - conflating culture and ethnicity, and I suspect also including race. Why else is "White", which is nether cultural nor ethnic background, heading one segment? I'd like to see the hard science behind creating these categories which seem very fuzzy to me. Why is Jersey only listed under White? How is Asian Jersey (of maybe several generations) different from White Jersey? What is this information going to be used for? It seems to me more a legacy of an imperial past than of current importance.

Where were you born, on the other hand, is a far more solid question. You can only be born in one place - even if born on board a ship or plane, it is one location.

The Census - Poor Questions Part 2: Legal Marital Status

This question is so limited. It ignores the number of cohabiting couples who live in Jersey. Is there a question relating to that? No. And so while useful perhaps for assessing pensions, tax provisions, etc etc, in terms of building up a picture of how many couples there are cohabiting, some of whom may even have children, there is a black hole. We don't know and won't know the size of that hole, because
no questions address it. Why is it important? The USA report on their census explains why:

"As cohabition has become increasingly common and accepted in the United States, statistical agencies face an increased need to gather data on cohabition as well as marital status in order to get a more complete picture of family structure. Statistics on unwed births often include cases where biological parents are unmarried, but cohabiting and planning to raise the child together. Cohabiting couples with children often function much like families that have married parents, but are often categorized as single parents in statistical analyses. Additionally, gay and lesbian couples with children also often fuction as family units, without being married. These households may look like single parent families, with no indication that the child has two parents in the household. Many researchers are interested in the impact of cohabitation on children's well-being. In order to study this, we must be able to identify cohabiting couples with children."

The Census - Poor Questions Part 3: Transport

The transport question doesn't ask if alternative forms of transport are available from the person's location. Clearly, someone who is elderly and/or infirm can hardly be expected to use public transport in remote locations, some distance from the nearest bus stop, and it doesn't even include mobility scooters either.

There are a number of reasons why people use different modes of transport to get to work including the availability of affordable and effective public transport options, the number of motor vehicles available within a household, and the distance travelled to work. The census is a very blunt instrument on this question.

The Census - Missing Questions Part 4: Disability

There is nothing on disability, which would really be more useful than ethnic or cultural background in assessing needs of islanders. For example, there's nothing on the deaf community, some of whom communicate only in British Sign Language, or whom it is the first language. For that matter, there's nothing on first language or whether people can speak English well.

The HOH (Hard of Hearing) population in jersey is potentially 1 in 6. that’s a lot of people becoming deaf and needing support, and the statistics are sometimes missing. If an individual uses the hearing resource centre, it may be picked up, but not otherwise, either because they can't use a hearing aid anyway, or have obtained one privately.

Resourcing disability is I think more important that knowing if someone is white.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: Constables, Resignations and the Law

 

I recently read this on Bailiwick Express

"The recently elected chairwoman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, Deputy Carina Alves, outlined the potential process for replacing Mr Taylor. ‘We are expecting the court to direct that a by-election be held quite soon,’ she said. ‘He [Mr Taylor] remains a Constable, and hence a States Member, until the new person is sworn in. It is my understanding that this is because the Constable has responsibilities to his parish, which means the post cannot be vacant. This is different from Senators and Deputies, whose posts are vacant as soon as their resignation is announced.’"

I disagree – there is no reason why the law could not be amended so that the Constable leaves office on resigning. His responsibilities would simply be taken over by another Parish official, outside of his States duties.

In support of this, I would note that a bi-election was held for the Parish of Grouville after the sudden death, during his term of office, of Constable Dan Murphy.

Clearly in that instant the post was vacant until a successor was elected – (which was in fact a contested election). So all that is needed is to change the law so that an election is held on a resignation of the existing Constable.

[Extra note: since writing this, Deputy Alves has issued a press statement:

The judgement comments on some discrepancies between the States of Jersey Law and the Connetables Law. PPC is already reviewing the law in this area and will study this complex judgement and will bring forward changes if they are needed]

As far as Parish duties are concerned, in the absence or incapacity of a Constable, their Parish duties devolve to the Procureur. This could equally apply on the resignation of a Constable.

https://www.jerseylaw.je/laws/revised/Pages/23.080.aspx#_Toc397428658

It should be noted that since 1998, the law relating to elections for Procureurs du Bien Public has been changed so as to require a public election – as opposed to an election merely by the Parish Assembly – to be held if the position is contested.

Article 5 duly provides for the senior Procureur to deputise for the Connétable in the latter’s incapacity (inability to discharge the functions of office) or absence from Jersey; but it also provides for such deputisation whilst there is a vacancy in the office of Connétable.

The law also notes that for a Constable, “an inability to discharge the functions of office means an inability for any reason, be it illness, injury or otherwise.”. I would have thought that being found guilty and told to resign would come under "or otherwise".

And finally... the law regarding the Constables not leaving office when they resign has been in place for ages, and some of the States members - not Deputy Alves, who is a new States member - have been in the States for some considerable time. 

One Deputy has been in the States since 2008, and yet has not seen fit to bring any proposition to correct this anomaly. It seems very slack that they have simply not bothered to look at this before. 

The simplest solution is for PPC to amend the law and close the loophole.

I would also note that no one has sought to change the position regarding Crown appointments either, despite the fact that a relief Magistrate was found guilty in the Royal Court and sentenced to prison, and yet still was allowed to retain his position and salary because there was no fast-track mechanism for removing him.

Grumbles from the Pulpit: Ideology, Translation, and Imperialism

Lost in non-translation

Amanda Gorman's The Hill We Climb stole the show at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration but when a renowned Dutch author was asked to translate her work there was an outcry because the translator is not black.

Critics said it was not just about skin colour but identity too. This was not simply about translation but whether Gorman's poetry could be accurately reflected, interpreted by someone of a different ethnicity, genre, and mother tongue.

(BBC News)

Good luck to anyone translating the Iliad and Odyssey, as they will clearly not be able to translate Homer's poetry - for how on earth could that be accurately reflected, interpreted by someone of a different ethnicity, genre, and mother tongue - and one might add, another time?

It seems that the world has gone mad, and common sense has been pushed out of the window of the top floor of a very high, and probably American, skyscraper.

But it makes a nonsense of any kind of translations of works of the distant past. How on earth could one translate and make any sense of the oldest work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh?

The reason why the same argument has not been applied to translations of ancient worlds is, I believe, twofold.

In the first instance, no one has thought what the logic of that position on translating Gorman's poem would be if applied universally, and hence to all works of literature, past and present. Once you think about that, you can easily see the nonsensical nature of that stance.

And secondly, Amanda Gorman is very much alive, while Homer is, of course, long dead. In other words, this attitude has less to do with ability to translate, and more to do with a particular ideology of segregation, forcing its way onto the contemporary world, who really know little or nothing about translation, but know a great deal about their own particular idée fixe.

And what is that? It is saying that people of one colour and mother tongue and culture cannot be understood by another, that there is too great a divide for any connections to be made. It likes to put up barriers, and has a pathological hatred of any notion that there can be communication across such a divide, which it sees as a vast chasm.

As someone who has followed with interest Voyager, and the plaque devised by Carl Sagan, and sent out to the stars to seek contact, so full of hope, this is opposed to all those values that I hold dear. 

 How can we hope to understand and make contact with other alien civilisations, if we put in place barriers to even attempting to translate a poem from one language to another? For surely, par excellence, those arguments stated against the renown Dutch author would apply even more to some intelligence who came from a truly alien culture?

I remember when Sagan arranged for a photo to be taken of Earth from the fast receding and distant Voyager, when it appeared as a pale blue dot. If ever there were posturings and imagined self-importance, we see them in this furore over translation:

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

The Double Edged Sword of Imperialism

I must be getting old, and more like Victor Meldrew, because there is a particular annoyance which I come across increasingly, and it is a kind of reverse Imperialism. This is the position which not only takes British Imperialism as all bad, but also seeks to blame anyone who is white and British for what their ancestors did - and in particular the slave trade. It often goes hand in hand with a mantra which declares we are guilty of that past, or at least guilty by proxy because of our past ancestors, who were part and parcel of the British Empire.

Against that, I find the words of Nye Bevan (from "In Place of Fear"), just the remedy, and just right to put this nonsense in its place.

He is commenting on the House of Parliament, but his words could apply equally to the common person's involvement in the British Empire:

"The first thing he should bear in mind is that these were not his ancestors. His forebears had

no part in the past, the accumulated dust of which now muffles his own footfalls. His forefathers were tending sheep or ploughing the land, or serving the statesmen whose names he sees written on the walls around him, or whose portraits look down upon him in the long corridors. It is not the past of his people that extends in colourful pageantry before his eyes. They were shut out from all this; were forbidden

to take part in the dramatic scenes depicted in these frescoes."

Assuming that someone is white and hence must somehow be held responsible for the wrongdoings of the British Empire (because of their ancestry) is actually a kind of Imperialism itself, imposing its attributions upon those who, as Bevan notes, "were shut out from all this".

Grumbles from the Pulpit 3: Mixing Vaccines: Mixed Messages

Mixing Vaccines: Mixed Messages

As far as I can tell, studies are underway but not complete on the efficacy of mixing vaccines.

So why is Jersey saying “It follows an endorsement of the approach by the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.”

When clearly there is NO endorsement to support it. In fact, quite the contrary – until trials are complete, later in the summer!!!

Essentially Jersey should sign up to trials if we are going to do this, and people should be made aware of that.

"This approach has been endorsed by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation."

If they did endorse it, it is extraordinary, given that trials are not due to give preliminary results until the summer, and they have stated quite clearly it can only be "a last resort" at present. Moreover, when they did consider mixing vaccines, back in January, the JCOVAI very quickly backtracked after criticism that they were not following proven science.

The Facts of the Matter

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine-alternating-dose-study-launches-in-uk/26773

Study on mixing vaccines began in February

The study will run for 13 months and patients will be recruited over the course of February via the NHS COVID-19 Vaccine Research Registry. Vaccinations are expected to start towards the middle of the month and initial results to be made available over the summer period.

So why has Jersey not mentioned that the science is not yet robust?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55924433

The vaccines minister said no changes would be made to the UK's current approach until at least the summer.

Currently, official guidance from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) says anyone already given the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca jab as part of the UK's approved immunisation programme should get the same vaccine for both doses.

There is no suggestion this will change, although in very rare circumstances a different vaccine can be used - if only one vaccine is available, or it's not known which was given for the first dose.

And further back, some red flags:

NHS England’s vaccine deployment chief commercial officer Emily Lawson told MPs at a House of Commons public accounts committee meeting on 11 January that she did not expect mixing to occur - and stressed it should be done only as a ‘last resort’.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-02/mixing-vaccines-not-recommended-public-health-england-say

England's health agency has warned against mixing vaccines from different suppliers after a US newspaper reported an update to Public Health England's Covid handbook that would allow for a "mix-and-match" vaccine roll out. Updated advice PHE Covid guidelines say: “It is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule” if the same vaccine used for the first dose is not available.

Later, the agency's coronavirus 'green book' adds: “There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the Covid-19 vaccines although studies are under way.”

Commenting on reports on mixing vaccines, Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisations at PHE, said: “We do not recommend mixing the Covid-19 vaccines – if your first dose is the Pfizer vaccine you should not be given the AstraZeneca vaccine for your second dose and vice versa.”

She added: "There may be extremely rare occasions where the same vaccine is not available, or where it is not known what vaccine the patient received.

"Every effort should be made to give them the same vaccine, but where this is not possible, it is better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all."

Dr Ramsay was forced to defend the UK's vaccine regimen after an article in the New York Times report accused Britain of deploying a "mix-and-match" approach to the vaccine roll out.

The report quoted virologist Prof John Moore from Cornell University in the US who accused the UK of having "abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess”.

Prof Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Our current advice is that you use the same vaccine for both doses. However, we have studies that are ongoing at the moment to look at mixing vaccines and when we see the data for those and are secure about the data for those, then we may be recommending mixed dose strategy.”

Grumbles from the Pulpit 2

It's Child's Play, Minister

Question Will the Minister explain what assessment was made of the risk factors in terms of exempting children under the age of 3, versus children under the age of 5, in the restrictions on gatherings?

Minister for Health Answer The risk factors considered were that, in broad terms, many children under 3 years of age are less independently mobile than children aged 4 to 5 years, making it easier for parents / carers to ensure safe distancing between the child and others. Furthermore, children aged 4 and 5 years old are more likely to use the toilet independently of parents / carers, which potentially increases the risk of poor hand hygiene. Clearly this can vary from child to child.

Where on earth did they get this notion from? Most children are able to walk alone by 11-15 months.

Kid's Health notes that:

Toddlers — it's hard to imagine a more fitting name for this stage of development. Between the ages of 1 and 3, toddlers are literally scooting away from babyhood in search of new adventures. They're learning to talk, to walk and run, and to assert their independence. For many in this age group, "outside" and "play" are becoming common requests. As a parent, you're focused on keeping your little one safe. Supervision and safety precautions, such as gates and electrical outlet covers, are important.

Less independently mobile? It doesn't sound like it.

There are various news stories which are easy to find on google about two year olds wandering off and these demonstrate clearly, the notion that children under three years of age are "less independently mobile" and - without adequate understanding - can understand "social distancing" is a chimera.

A BBC report highlighted the issues - and this is with a six year old's understanding!

Lara Crisp, editor of the grandparents' social networking website Gransnet, said users of the site had been expressing concerns about how the changes will work.
"One grandmother said to me that she had recently met with her six-year-old granddaughter who just couldn't get the social distancing," she said.
"She wanted to hold her hand and help her climb a tree.
"It ended up with the grandchild bursting into tears, upset and confused at what was happening.
"Many older children get it, but for younger children it is hard."

So how is a two year old to be taught to behave at a gathering?

That's not to say they can't be taught about social distancing. Help is at hand! But the Minister should be aware of the difficulties.

How do you explain social distancing to a 2-year-old girl who just wants to hug her grandparents?

Benjamin Lindquist, MD, a Stanford clinical assistant professor of emergency medicine, gave it a try when he brought his daughter Kiley to see relatives soon after the COVID-19 outbreak began.

To help other parents in the same situation, he wrote a children's book entitled I Love You When You're Close and When You're Far Away. Lindquist is donating proceeds to GetUsPPE.org, a group that is collecting personal protective equipment for health care workers during the pandemic.

But as far as gatherings go, the Health Minister should meet some two year old toddlers and see just how independent they are! We really could do without this nonsense. And instead of that, perhaps give out some advice on how to keep toddlers - who are very independent and pushing boundaries all the time - can be kept safer.

References:
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/exploring.html.
https://www.ibtimes.com/2-year-old-child-found-wandering-unsupervised-louisiana-mother-didnt-notice-missing-2982590
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52851927
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/05/21/social-distancing-through-the-eyes-of-a-toddler/

Grumbles from the Pulpit

Bad Statistics in Jersey

Guernsey: Tuesday 16th February - We currently have 142 (known) active cases of COVID-19. There have been 3 new cases found in the last day and 37 people have recovered. Of the new cases, 1 is a contact of known cases and 2 were identified through planned workforce screening and are not directly linked to a source.

Jersey - we get the statistics about workforce screening, but we don't know if they are directly linked to a source or not. This information is not forthcoming.

This is a key metric, and without it, picking up planned workforce screening tells us very little about the transmission of Covid in the community.

Since Thursday 11 February, 4 individuals have recovered and 7 new cases have been identified (6 through planned workforce screening and 1 through contact tracing)

So are the 6 cases unknown community source or not? The statistics we get are abysmal.

The Grand Strategy: It's the Economy, Stupid!

Jersey's Grand Strategy. Don't even think of household bubbles. No household mixing. But if you go out to a restaurant, you can socially mix with another household as long as there is 2 metre distancing. And you wear your mask when not eating, so are putting it on, taking it off, precisely what they tell us not to do with advice to wear a mask on streets between shops. Contradictions like this don't surprise me, because the underlying principle is to get hospitality open first.

A friend writes: "Those of us who live alone would love to have a household bubble. In the past year I haven’t visited anyone, apart from going to family at Christmas."

And a Deputy writes:

"For two months we have not permitted our children their partners nor our grandchildren into the house . And this to carry on being against the rules from 22 Feb. So now we are told it's ok then it because . We can go to a restaurant and eat out with them for two and half hours. Unlike our homes which we control the risk in the restaurant we have no control over the risk nor from other dinners . Are we supposed to believe this in the interests of people's health . Comment from a family member worth repeating .. " it's about money are we to taken as fools .' All the evidence shows that trust is key"."

Guernsey so sensibly opens up with limited and gradually growing household bubbles. And the Chief Minister refuses point blank to consider such a sensible option which helps mental health - and instead has this restaurant opening strategy, which as my friend in the UK points out, led to their second lockdown. 

Remember Boris and "eat out" until it all went horribly wrong. I've been told that I should note there is no excuse for behaviour that endangers innocent members of the community. Quite honestly, and if one could, I'd impeach the Chief Minister and Health Minister on those grounds!

Pre-Natal Scans: A Deficit in Sense and Compassion

Very good points by Deputy Louise Doublet and Senator Sam Mezec on the state of affairs: partners not able to be present at pre-natal scans, while different households will be able to meet and eat at a restaurant, with obviously no face masks while eating or drinking (and talking at the same time). Another example of a government totally out of touch and inconsistent.

The Government is Singing from the Wrong Hymn Sheet

Imogen Nichols: ""I fail to see how 15 grown men huffing and puffing in a rugby scrum is deemed a safe activity when my choir of 15-plus socially distanced teenagers is not and I would like to know please, in the next 48 hours, the reasons why the one is permitted by the Government of Jersey and the other is not so that I may plan the choir's activities for the coming weeks."

I fail to see it too. But then the current government has not been noted of late for rational decision making, despite calling on STAC (when it seems useful to do so). As with the families celebrating Christmas Eve, the Government lives in an Ivory castle remote and untouched by the concerns of the wider world.

Remember when the use of gardens was allowed for social distanced meetings, and the Chief Minister expressed surprise (in a Q&A) that there could be gardens only accessed through the house! It's another world.

And finally... from "Yes, Minister"

Hacker: The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's more expensive to do them cheaply and it's more democratic to do them in secret.

Restaurants Opening: A Misguided Strategy

Restaurants Opening: A Misguided Strategy

The Chief Minister has defended the decision to soon allow up to ten people from different households to sit at a table in a hospitality venue, but not let them do the same in someone's home.

Cafes, restaurants and pubs that serve food can open from Monday 22 February, but rules on household mixing will remain the same..Senator John Le Fondre says the medical advice is that uncontrolled mixing in households remains risky.

"They're going to do temperature checks when you go in, there is the normal contact tracing side, there is the fact it is time-limited (two and a half hours), it's seated, it's spaced, and therefore your behaviour will be relatively controlled.

"The risk is lower than, for the sake of argument, a group of people in a house where you're there for an unlimited amount of time, you might relax, you might start hugging and you might just get a lot closer.

That is why in Guernsey, they have "bubbles" where you link, initially with just one other household, and as numbers fall, the bubbles can grow gradually. It worked well for them in the first lockdown, and they are starting it again in a very limited way (as before) in the second lockdown.

Essentially a bubble of two households means they are treated as one for the purpose of examining virus transmission. It is highly restricted, and a lot safer than the restaurant opening where if staff in a kitchen get Covid, the risks of transmission to customers are proportionally far higher.

I'd like to know if anyone who makes these rules about restaurants - and two metre seating - has any idea what two metres looks like.

A three seater sofa is normally around 2 metres. That means you'd have to be seated off each end of the sofa to be two metres distance.




The length of a double bed is around 2 metres.



And this is what it looks like with a table.


And remember tables need to be that distance apart.

And also remember shared toilets!

Large venues - like the Royal Yacht - will do well, but smaller restaurants - like Mark Jordan's will barely be able to open.

A few other facts.

If there is a fan or current generated in a closed space such as a restaurant, particles will also travel farther. This was shown in a paper from China: People in a restaurant downwind of an infected person became infected even though the distance was greater than 2 metres. In this cold weather, do restaurants have heating? Is this mentioned in the guidelines. No! And yet this is a known scientific fact from studies of Covid transmission.

If servers wear masks, that will afford a layer of protection, but customers eating and talking could still spread the virus. One way to mitigate that risk in this imperfect situation, at least from a public health point of view, would be to have tables surrounded by protective barriers, such as plexiglass or screens, or put tables in separate rooms with doors that can be closed.

And finally...

Recently advice has been given by the Health Minister to keep masks on in town as going in and out of shops and taking off masks when outside and then putting them on again increases the risk of contamination by touching the mask. However, in restaurants, you are now being told to put on masks when not eating or drinking, take them off to eat or drink, and put them on again between courses.