Coronavirus

[ewerk 30371]

7 minutes ago, Asprilla said:

Out of interest, would you prefer the lockdown/authoritarian/compulsory vaccine model or the use common sense/don’t break society/take vaccines if you wish model?

Aye because common sense and the British English public go hand in hand.

[Asprilla 96]

5 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I struggle with this line "People who need to be given rules and mandates from a government" Clearly some people do, as they find being asked to wear a mask on public transport, during a pandemic, as an assault on liberty. The UK , US and Brazil are in a minority of countries who call Covid Mitigation - Covid Restrictions - its for a reason. They want business as usual and people spending and to somehow say that Public Health protection measures are tied to liberty and freedom.  

Well what's the role of a government in a national emergency if not to govern .

If we didn't need rules and mandates we'd need no police etc. People need clear rules and governance, not guidance and unenforceable crap. There's a reason we've lost so many people per capita.
 

Also, calling people snowflakes for "needing them" , is a little ironic given that anyone over the age of 40 pretty much grew up with Public Information Films from the government, telling you not to let your kids eat smarty coloured tablets.

I have no problem with wearing a mask indoors but I have a very big problem with being (potentially) forced to take a vaccine against my will.

 

 

 

I’m not anti rule or anti police but I believe there needs to be the least amount of “force” possible.

[Rayvin 5186]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

I agree wholeheartedly, but would add that I think the energy companies misinformation spread and decades long campaign against the science of climate change - are probably more to blame than Micheal Gove in the UK.

The film "Don't look up" on Netflix at the moment is worth a watch. 

I think the pandemic response is climate change in a microcosm. Ignore it - its too far away, Deny it, Counter it - act when its too late and too slowly, because economies might suffer.

 

 

Yeah fair, I didn't so much mean to suggest he caused it so much as he was a quite high profile case of someone saying it quite bluntly. You're right though, climate science denial was an early example of this sort of rhetoric.

[Asprilla 96]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Aye because common sense and the British English public go hand in hand.

It still doesn’t mean locking everyone up and force vaxxing them is the answer

 

 

[Asprilla 96]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

Yeah 

Is it hard to answer?

[Rayvin 5186]

What I will say for Asprilla is that his views do appear to be consistent across issues. For Brexit, philosophical motives win out - i.e. we should be free to do what we please irrespective of economic (and other) factors in which we will suffer. For Covid we should be free to do what we please irrespective of the number of people who die and the extent to which the health services are overwhelmed. Freedom > everything.

 

I can't accept any economic argument on covid though since the economy was thrown under the bus by Brexit - that position isn't consistent unless we're saying that the order of priority is freedom > economy > people's lives.

 

If that's your position then you don't need to argue the data points specifically - you can acknowledge the scale of the deaths, the effectiveness of the vaccine, and the other issues as being true, and still say that despite all of that, you prefer to have your freedom. I prize my freedom too, and am quite liberal in a number of areas as a consequence. And I'm not totally happy with the idea of vaccine passports either for what its worth - but I couldn't put my desire to be free on this single issue up against someone's very life, and look myself in the mirror in the morning. And since you're arguing the facts, I guess you can't either.

 

So - do you need your interpretation of the facts to be right in order to continue to have your freedom as paramount, and is that what is motivating you to find arguments that suit your preferred outcome? Or would freedom win out either way, and the rest is something of a PR exercise because you know how that would look? For whatever it's worth, I'd respect the latter more than the former. I wouldn't agree, at all, but I think reaching a really honest place with our views is very important for society these days. I may be alone in this though.

[scoobos 298]

24 minutes ago, Asprilla said:

 I have a very big problem with being (potentially) forced to take a vaccine against my will.

 

Me too. Every human being has a right to decide what you take medically (or recreationally!) as long as it isn't harming others.

If you distance, use mitigation, test regularly and isolate properly if you are positive, then you could potentially be "doing a better job" than someone who's vaccinated and takes no other precautions because "They are ok jack" , despite carrying and potentially spreading the virus.

No one should be forced to have a needle put in their arm against their will. I chose to be vaccinated and appreciate having that choice. 

Now, being restricted from big indoor venues during the pandemic stage, if you're not vaccinated, I can agree with that tbh. But not literally forcing you against your will, its your choice not to be vaccinated, it should be a nightclubs choice not to let you in. 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

vaccine mandates don'y work for me either. i don't think we want to head down that path.

i have no problem with vaccine-sceptics being denied access to chunks of society though 

[NJS 4375]

1 hour ago, Asprilla said:

Jesus wept

 

People who need to be given rules and mandates from a government to feel safe are the toddlers

 

Take plenty of vitamin D, exercise and stay away from people where possible especially vulnerable people is all that’s needed

 

 

What about people who can't work from home and don't have sick pay who live with vulnerable people who have to therefore go out and catch it from unvaccinated, unmasked freedom warriors? 

 

It's the latter who need to be coerced. 

[NJS 4375]

12 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

vaccine mandates don'y work for me either. i don't think we want to head down that path.

i have no problem with vaccine-sceptics being denied access to chunks of society though 

Isn't there hepatitis mandates for some health care workers already? 

 

As I think I mentioned before when my brother in law qualified as a marine engineer he couldn't go to sea without cholera and a couple of other mandatory vaccinations - simply no job without them. 

[scoobos 298]

35 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

What I will say for Asprilla is that his views do appear to be consistent across issues. For Brexit, philosophical motives win out - i.e. we should be free to do what we please irrespective of economic (and other) factors in which we will suffer. For Covid we should be free to do what we please irrespective of the number of people who die and the extent to which the health services are overwhelmed. Freedom > everything.

 

I can't accept any economic argument on covid though since the economy was thrown under the bus by Brexit - that position isn't consistent unless we're saying that the order of priority is freedom > economy > people's lives.

 

If that's your position then you don't need to argue the data points specifically - you can acknowledge the scale of the deaths, the effectiveness of the vaccine, and the other issues as being true, and still say that despite all of that, you prefer to have your freedom. I prize my freedom too, and am quite liberal in a number of areas as a consequence. And I'm not totally happy with the idea of vaccine passports either for what its worth - but I couldn't put my desire to be free on this single issue up against someone's very life, and look myself in the mirror in the morning. And since you're arguing the facts, I guess you can't either.

 

So - do you need your interpretation of the facts to be right in order to continue to have your freedom as paramount, and is that what is motivating you to find arguments that suit your preferred outcome? Or would freedom win out either way, and the rest is something of a PR exercise because you know how that would look? For whatever it's worth, I'd respect the latter more than the former. I wouldn't agree, at all, but I think reaching a really honest place with our views is very important for society these days. I may be alone in this though.

Exactly.

This is Neoliberalism at its worst.

It should be, that the economy works to improve peoples lives and health and serve our needs. The modern multinational "neoliberal" economics seem to say that we serve the economy and risk our health to serve its needs. If that breaks your employment laws, just outsource / externalise it overseas, then blame them for emissions / human rights etc.
 

[Dr Gloom 21847]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

Isn't there hepatitis mandates for some health care workers already? 

 

As I think I mentioned before when my brother in law qualified as a marine engineer he couldn't go to sea without cholera and a couple of other mandatory vaccinations - simply no job without them. 

is there? i know we put fluoride in the water despite howls of protest from the libertarians so there is a precedent, kind of. i don't recall us ever injecting people against their will though i might be wrong. 

a private company should be free to enforce a mandate if it chooses - people can choose to work elsewhere. i don't think it's the government's role to vaccinate people against their will. i'd rather the money was spent informing and educating. 

 

[Alex 34913]

Biggest irony is the ‘awake’ are the ones being played. See QAnon

[Asprilla 96]

35 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

What I will say for Asprilla is that his views do appear to be consistent across issues. For Brexit, philosophical motives win out - i.e. we should be free to do what we please irrespective of economic (and other) factors in which we will suffer. For Covid we should be free to do what we please irrespective of the number of people who die and the extent to which the health services are overwhelmed. Freedom > everything.

 

I can't accept any economic argument on covid though since the economy was thrown under the bus by Brexit - that position isn't consistent unless we're saying that the order of priority is freedom > economy > people's lives.

 

If that's your position then you don't need to argue the data points specifically - you can acknowledge the scale of the deaths, the effectiveness of the vaccine, and the other issues as being true, and still say that despite all of that, you prefer to have your freedom. I prize my freedom too, and am quite liberal in a number of areas as a consequence. And I'm not totally happy with the idea of vaccine passports either for what its worth - but I couldn't put my desire to be free on this single issue up against someone's very life, and look myself in the mirror in the morning. And since you're arguing the facts, I guess you can't either.

 

So - do you need your interpretation of the facts to be right in order to continue to have your freedom as paramount, and is that what is motivating you to find arguments that suit your preferred outcome? Or would freedom win out either way, and the rest is something of a PR exercise because you know how that would look? For whatever it's worth, I'd respect the latter more than the former. I wouldn't agree, at all, but I think reaching a really honest place with our views is very important for society these days. I may be alone in this though.

I don’t “not care” about economics at all.

 

I’m arguing that (for example) our connections to the commonwealth especially India, a country with an enormous population and growing middle class can’t be exploited because the other 27 member states wouldn’t necessarily prioritise it.

 

i would rather we could have kept a better trading relationship with the EU but (and we can differ on this) they would rather “teach us a lesson” than find a good solution.

 

I also believe that people are generally smart enough to behave relatively well.

 

once the basics of how to behave regarding Covid became clear, most people tried not to catch it.

 

a good percentage of British people don’t like the nanny state and so they rebel against mandates when perhaps a different approach may have been more effective.

 

think Souness versus Robson.

[Alex 34913]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

is there? i know we put fluoride in the water despite howls of protest from the libertarians so there is a precedent, kind of. i don't recall us ever injecting people against their will though i might be wrong. 

a private company should be free to enforce a mandate if it chooses - people can choose to work elsewhere. i don't think it's the government's role to vaccinate people against their will. i'd rather the money was spent informing and educating. 

 

They aren’t mandatory in the same way that doing a job that requires them isn’t mandatory 

[Asprilla 96]

13 minutes ago, NJS said:

What about people who can't work from home and don't have sick pay who live with vulnerable people who have to therefore go out and catch it from unvaccinated, unmasked freedom warriors? 

 

It's the latter who need to be coerced. 

They could get vaccinated, especially as they could catch it from vaccinated people anyway.

 

and for the third or fourth or time I wear a mask in indoor public places

 

 

[NJS 4375]

I've never been a parent so don't know whether things have changed and I can't ask mine but I'm not sure that the modern concept of freedom to refuse applied to things like polio and bcg vaccinations. Maybe it was a hangover from the war but people were more accepting of coercion up until the development of the choice culture under Thatcher. 

 

I think when it's "the greater good" then things like seat belts and water treatments and yes vaccinations aren't the end of the world but I fully accept the decision making of what that justification is does possibly take us down a dodgy road. I don't think this one is that dodgy, that's all. 

[scoobos 298]

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

Biggest irony is the ‘awake’ are the ones being played. See QAnon

Does this need an /s for sarcasm?

[NJS 4375]

6 minutes ago, Asprilla said:

They could get vaccinated, especially as they could catch it from vaccinated people anyway.

 

and for the third or fourth or time I wear a mask in indoor public places

 

 

If my plan had been followed versus classic and delta where vaccination all but eliminated transmission then we'd never have got this far. 

[Alex 34913]

2 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Does this need an /s for sarcasm?

No

[Gemmill 44498]

I don't agree with vaccine mandates. I think it's an enormous shame (and then some) that the NHS is having to deal with the outcome, but I don't think you can force drugs into people against their will. 

 

Having said that, I would come up with some sort of register for these antivax dickheads protesting outside of schools and the like. 

[ewerk 30371]

I'm pretty sure most of them are already on a register tbh.

[ewerk 30371]

Djokovic now barred from entering Australia just as he landed.  

[Gemmill 44498]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Djokovic now barred from entering Australia just as he landed.  

 

 

Brilliant. He's a proper dickhead that bloke. 

[Alex 34913]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Djokovic now barred from entering Australia just as he landed.  

Nelson Muntz tbh