Coronavirus - Overall
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Civil liberties and human rights are important. The current social contract around those liberties and rights can simplistically be summed up as do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
The obvious question would be where a pandemic sits in that framework, particularly a disease which has a long asymptomatic but infectious period, and a high impact on certain demographic groups. It's pretty easy to catch it and spread it unknowingly, so where does your right to do whatever you want infringe on others' rights? That's a tough question, and it's not something with an easy answer.
There is an answer when not locked in a nanny state mindset
Let people decide themselves but with restriction on the sick only. So restrict the sick only not the law abiding healthy.
Not easy when you have no real way of knowing if people are sick or not. Your plan would allow those who are asymptomatic or in the early stages of the disease or others that think the whole thing is a conspiracy to mix freely and spread it.
Not really a plan is it?
Not for those locked in the nanny state mindset. Where a parent figure must decide for them and everyone else.
Even if it means destroying the economy and many livesI trust the good sense of people. If unhealthy then mostly stay at home or risk becoming very ill. If healthy then go about your business but with a few extra steps as required
Maybe the Govt could do some temperature readings in bigger areas but don't go overboard and destroy the economy. This is madness for what was a fairly mild flu for most. Its the vulnerable that need to take care. That is those who are older (like me) and esp those (young or old) with underlying health issueYou really didn't address my point at all. I and many others understand your view about the nanny state. There is really no need to answer every query or contrary view with the same argument. At no point did I disagree with that viewpoint, I merely raised a factual issue which your plan ignored. Your counter is to ignore it again with repetition.
How about addressing the issue of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people spreading the virus and how your plan would cater for this. That is quite a simple point. If you can address this issue then maybe we can discuss the nanny state and the economy v health concerns.
But I have addressed it.>
No you haven't.>
The Govt should be an advisor for adults not act like a parent enforcer for children, So start treating the people like adults and I believe most (99%) will respond well. (be an enforcer only for those that don't, For eg the sick who are out and about)>
Yes, you have said all this before - repetition. Sad to say, what you believe is not the sound basis for national emergency planning. I expect though that you have some basis for suggesting a 99% success rate?
Thought not>In populated areas say have temperature readings to restrict the few that don't.
Re people who have it but don't know. A minor issue. It's those that are coughing and sneezing that mostly spread it. But I have already said focus on the vulnerable. This group would be strongly advised to be locked down. For example in the UK people I know are having food delivered etc who are in great health but are over 70. They did it themselves. Its not compulsory
And offer advise to everyone re taking extra care. Maybe masks in large areas etc might be advised, Also steps to boost their immune system>
Now you have attempted to address it but only by waiving it away>
Or the Chinese approach. Wuhan was closed down for months but not the rest of China (only weeks) Or some US states. Some main areas were closed down but not the outskirts.>
Comparisons are worthless. You might as well compare NZ or Aus as Wuhan. All are equally irrelevant in looking at the UK>
And I'm over 60 now. i don't want young people having their lives destroyed (losing their jobs etc) to protect me. I need to protect myself. I trust my immune system but if I didn't I would self isolate.>
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
China and the Soviet Union are two great examples of what you want. Or the West today where the wise Govt's have destroyed the economy.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
A VERY big issue is that a significant number of infected are asymptomatic, but may clear their throat or have a single cough on public transport. Those droplets can potentially infect a lot of people. Which is why wearing masks on public transport protects others. But as a community the others wearing masks protect you and yours. Point very well made on Marr Show, Sunday.
From all I've seen, lockdown hasn't really served much DIRECT purpose. But social distancing most certainly has. In Sweden depsite almost no lockdown, the populace has largely adopted soical distancing and the virus hasn't has much impact in general community.
Would the UK or NZ people have taken the principles to heart so well? That's a personal judgement, but I have my doubts.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
OK so you back yourself. Do you assume you are more informed and rational than most or would you simply describe yourself as average? Even if it is the latter, have a lookout how stupid the average person can be and then ponder that half the population are even more stupid.
And this is where the issue is ("how stupid the average person can be"). This attitude leads to a nanny state where supposedly a super bright elite run the world for the good of all. Its a dangerous attitude IMO. As the so called super bright elite can be not only stupid but also soulless. And prone to make silly errors. As for example Neil Ferguson's (Imperial College) initial projections.
I back democracy and the average person not a nanny state run by a wise elite. That worryingly is where we are heading.
The problem is you see things in black and white, rather than shades of grey. There are too many people selfish and ignorant who are oblivious or uncaring about their impact on others. They're why we can't permit people to make their own decisions.
China and the Soviet Union are two great examples of what you want. Or the West today where the wise Govt's have destroyed the economy.
Yeah, that would be me - the bloke arguing strenuously on this forum for taking away people's liberties, closing businesses and putting people out of work.
-
@Winger Not sure about the USA, but in NZ and after some digging around health and Stats NZ websites, those who are high risk of Covid-19 being serious (not necessarily lethal, but possibly requiring hospitalisation or causing long term organ damage) are:
- 70+ (545,000)
- Respiratory issues (830,000)
- Hypertension/high blood pressure (864,000)
- Heart disease (180,000)
- Diabetes (250,000)
- BMI 40+ (185,000)
- Heavy smoker (270,000)
- Kidney disease (210,000)
- Liver disease (50,000 Hep B, but no one number or % that I could find)
- Immune-compromised (2,000 HIV patients, otherwise Lord knows)
Obviously a lot of those aren't mutually exclusive so people will have more than one of them (especially the diabetes suite of BMI 40+, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease), but there's a reasonable case for at least 15% being high risk (11% of our population are 70+) and perhaps another 10-15% medium-high risk.
We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms, or just do what we did and suck it up for 8 weeks.
-
I split the UK stuff into it's own thread:
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/3982/coronavirus-uk/25It was getting hard to follow the two different conversations happening in this thread
-
My Father-in-law in the UK said I received a letter from the NHS asking me if I wanted to take part in some Covid trial...
Random AF given I havent paid taxes there since 2004.
-
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms, or just do what we did and suck it up for 8 weeks.
Thanks for this information. Interesting. But its not a great reflection on our so called health care system. And its likely to get worse in future years as lots of young NZers now are really overweight.
"We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms". A smart Govt would do this
"just do what we did and suck it up for 8 weeks." A nanny state Govt does this. -
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms, or just do what we did and suck it up for 8 weeks.
Thanks for this information. Interesting. But its not a great reflection on our so called health care system. And its likely to get worse in future years as lots of young NZers now are really overweight.
"We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms". A smart Govt would do this
"just do what we did and suck it up for 8 weeks." A nanny state Govt does this.So they can sacrifice their mental health along with their civil liberties, and the "smart government" can be voted out by those affected and their families? Good luck with that.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
"We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms". A smart Govt would do this
Lots of people are idiots, it's a fact of life. Even back in the days of the plague there is documentation of people sneaking out of their houses when they or family members are infected.
Your plan relies on enough people not being idiots.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
My Father-in-law in the UK said I received a letter from the NHS asking me if I wanted to take part in some Covid trial...
Random AF given I havent paid taxes there since 2004.
Expendable
-
-
@Nepia said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
"We could tell them all to stay home longer in isolation so the rest of the population can have more freedoms". A smart Govt would do this
Lots of people are idiots, it's a fact of life. Even back in the days of the plague there is documentation of people sneaking out of their houses when they or family members are infected.
Your plan relies on enough people not being idiots.
This is an elitist attitude that's a danger to society.
Where a select few are smart, wise and trustworthy but the rest are just idiots. (dumb human cattle that need to be tightly controlled and disciplined)The issue is the wealthy elite see you and me in this dumb cattle category. And them as the wise, superior super class.
So while you in your superiority on your high horse see others as inferior to you (its really a disowned part of you that you project onto other though) the elite use this mindset to take away our rights and treat as like naughty children. And wreck the economy doing so.