Coronavirus - UK
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
No it is not anarchy. It is placing the responsibility of ones health where it always should have been. So if you were worried about the virus killing you then it is up to you to protect yourself or those responsible for you health.
When you have a dangerous, infectious disease, to allow other people to ignore and endanger the health and life of others and restrict their lives and employment is anarchy.
You would only be endangering someone if you were infected. The assumption that everyone was infected based on no symptoms is illogical and fear driven.
Sick people in nursing homes obviously needed to be protected because they are sick. Thats common sense.
But the logical conclusion of your argument is a nurse with Covid could happily decide to work in a care home as she alone was responsible for her health.
An irresponsible nurse with Covid would do this, but most of us healthcare workers stay at home when we're sick, Covid or not. This is being responsible. You are not responsible for what you don't have.
It they were constantly updating based on fact lockdowns would have ended pretty quickly and most of their stupid policies would have ended quickly.
In the UK they did. Plenty of debate at the time on ending lockdown as information came available - as shown by the official inquiry
Well I had to drive to Chicago from LA Dec 2021 to say my last goodbyes to my Dad because of restrictions on travel, which I consider part of lockdown. It was still an issue in the States and walked back quicker because of sane Governors in red states heeding the advice of healthcare experts outside of the established narrative.
But you side were content to make a healthy person tip toe around the frailties of others.
I'd call that a civilised society. And "your side"? I'm simply making the point governments made difficult decisions based on what they knew at the time.
You refer to Anarchy. I think it was government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people. And I don't think your position is virtuous or civilized.
It is sad you have so much faith in government. I assume you would prefer to manage you finances rather than some bureaucrat.
Huge leap in logic there. My finances are managed by an IFA - regulated and regularly assessed by a government bureaucrat. Much safer than taking share tips from TikTok.
I'm too old for TikTok. John Howson was still on the radio when I was a kid. Based on your posts about Rugby history possibly your point of view is slighted because you were in that risk category.
-
Your first argument was vulnerable people should lock themselves away to allow healthy people not impacted by Covid to do whatever they want - even if infected - as healthy people weren't endangered. This is a good thing, you argue, as it avoids "government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people".
Then you argue it would be irresponsible for healthy people to do whatever they want, e.g nurses working with vulnerable people, if they were infected - even though in reality they might not even know they were infected.
Finally, you have no idea of my views on lockdowns whatsoever as I actually don't have any. The only point I've made is governments made decisions based on what they knew at the time and were relevant to their particular country.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
Your first argument was vulnerable people should lock themselves away to allow healthy people not impacted by Covid to do whatever they want - even if infected - as healthy people weren't endangered. This is a good thing, you argue, as it avoids "government overreach and a trampling of peoples rights to limit the activity of healthy people".
This is rubbish Victor. Obviously if you are symptomatic you would responsibly withdraw from socializing. This is what responsible people do, including health care workers, and even more so health care workers as we work with unhealthy people.
Then you argue it would be irresponsible for healthy people to do whatever they want, e.g nurses working with vulnerable people, if they were infected - even though in reality they might not even know they were infected.
My point is we shouldn't have to act like you are infected if you are not symptomatic. There were obviously different rules for health care workers going into the risk population just like there are different rules on the battlefield. We had masks, properly fitted N95, space suits when patients were dx with covid, were symptomatic, had pneumonia or on O2 (whether or not infected), temperature checks and questionnaires on symptoms, potential exposure etc etc. Different environment with different rules.
Finally, you have no idea of my views on lockdowns whatsoever as I actually don't have any. The only point I've made is governments made decisions based on what they knew at the time and were relevant to their particular country.
Fair enough. I do know you supported the government response and I just think the response was heavy handed. Thats our difference possibly. I really don't like that dissenting views were silenced which is not the scientific approach and have less confidence that "inquiries" will sort things out because politicians hate responsibility.
Thank God this mess is over although the other day I had a knee patient ask me to wear booties and a mask entering his home. His home, his rules but a hangover over of fear.
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
This is rubbish Victor. Obviously if you are symptomatic you would responsibly withdraw from socializing.
My point is we shouldn't have to act like you are infected if you are not symptomatic.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Same with the flu. You and I may have been responsible for the death of someone prior to covid without knowing it. Are we responsible for this?
I was just listening to a podcast of Tiktok and apparently there was group of sailors in Argentina that had isolated prior to heading out to sea and 6 weeks later at sea they contracted covid and it went through the group. How did they get it? The details might not be exactly right but the fact is it is a virus that we don't know how to contain. Assuming same is flawed.
This is a fun debate about focus protection that I believe in. Wish this would have happened earlier:
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Same with the flu.
No, it really isn't
We had Flu vaccine programmes to protect vulnerable groups people long before Covid and lockdowns. We didn't have a Covid-19 vaccine until 9 months after any lockdown.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Same with the flu.
No, it really isn't
We had Flu vaccines to protect vulnerable groups people long before Covid and lockdowns . We didn't have a Covid-19 vaccine until 9 months after any lockdown.
My point is that we can't contain a virus. Yes true we had vaccines but people still died of the flu despite vaccines and you and I may have transmitted it without knowing it.
Yes the covid vaccines helped the elderly/risk population although they did have side effects. Focus protection could have helped too!
Thanks for the info on Omicron and the point is? Never doubted the severity of Covid just the approach.
Grab a scotch and watch the video above. Both sides represented. Not confrontational.
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
My point is that we can't contain a virus
No, your point is/was governments were stupid to try.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Indirectly yes but they could try to protect those more susceptible.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
My point is that we can't contain a virus
No, your point is/was governments were stupid to try.
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
I am still triggered by 'you're in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated, and we won't tell you how many or what the conditions for lifting lockdown are. Trust us.' Extraordinary.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
V. different here. Tried to get out of lockdown ASAP - too early in hindsight according to some studies/data.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
V. different here. Tried to get out of lockdown ASAP - too early in hindsight according to some studies/data.
Yep and then there are those that say too late. What is for sure is that with the number of variables in play, there is no “right” answer. All you can hope for is for a reasoned response that is guided by an informed view of the trends, which I know is what you have basically been saying.
In hindsight there were glaring mistakes made, imo the most obvious, at the time, was allowing mass gatherings just days before a full lockdown. Championship football matches, Cheltenham Gold Cup etc. Just felt wrong at the time.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
FFS. You love and believe in the nanny state. I don't. Especially when it comes to health care.
But this (bullshit) argument that person A can kill person B so the Govt must act and force (or close to) vaccines (that kill or seriously harm the poor mugs who took them) etc. is I believe, big pharma promoted misinformation.
The reason person B dies is totally down to them. I'm old but due to old age if my in-built immune system is weak and my body frail, I wouldn't blame person A for killing me if I catch covid from them and almost die. It's totally down to me. I am no longer able to withstand the natural risks of being on this planet.
And the biggest danger we face in the West is not something like Covid. It's those that want a nanny state Govt to look after us. Rather than just providing information and letting the individual decide. Law abiding healthy people should never have been locked down or have their right taken away (including effectively being forced to take this so-called vaccine) like happened in many countries due to Covid
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
FFS. You love and believe in the nanny state. I don't. Especially when it comes to health care.
But this (bullshit) argument that person A can kill person B so the Govt must act and force (or close to) vaccines (that kill or seriously harm the poor mugs who took them) etc. is I believe, big pharma promoted misinformation.
The reason person B dies is totally down to them. I'm old but due to old age if my in-built immune system is weak and my body frail, I wouldn't blame person B for killing me if I catch covid from them and almost die. It's totally down to me. I am no longer able to withstand the natural risks of being on this planet.
And the biggest danger we face in the West is not something like Covid. It's those that want a nanny state Govt to look after us. Rather than just providing information and letting the individual decide. Law abiding healthy people should never have been locked down or have their right taken away (including effectively being forced to take this so-called vaccine) like happened in many countries due to Covid
First bolded bit - that depends entirely on the scale of things. If the risk is not particularly widespread then fine. I'd agree with you. If it was widespread then the Government have a duty to act to protect the population.
Second bolded bit. Any proof that this was a significant risk?
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
If it was widespread then the Government have a duty to act to protect the population.
By providing information and advising / recommending actions. And maybe closing down the obviously ill. But not law abiding & healthy people.
Govts haven't banned cars. Or sports that damage (it seems) the brain. Or not supported war or mostly outlawed abortion recently in the West. But I 100% believe they would if someone like Bill Gates could make big money by doing it. People need to see Govts for what they are. Not an idealized Mummy or Daddy figure.
Second bolded bit. Any proof that this was a significant risk?
I know people who ended up in hospital straight after the jab. They still haven't fully recovered
Regarding excess deaths. Some are certain of this. Others reject these claims. Time will tell.
-
You’re conflating things that have little or no correlation. Cars, sports, abortion and even war all have a purpose, a distinct aim and are more often than not a positive influence (ok war is debatable on the last point).
COVID did not have any of those plus points. It’s a nonsensical argument.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
COVID did not have any of those plus points. It’s a nonsensical argument.
?. I'm referring to the vaccine & mask wearing etc. They I assume had a purpose. Like making certain companies' lot of money for one. Without any liability risk for the people damaged by them thanks to (corrupt?) Govts around the world.
Govts are mostly the servants of the rich elite. They approve and promote what makes the elites lots of money. And are mostly well looked after when their time is finished (or even before). Or targeted if they don't comply. Like Trump for example.
-
OK I see a slightly different angle there but there really is still no correlation. The car/sports/etc argument is about banning something that can be dangerous whereas the vaccine/mask argument is not about banning something that was, for most people very positive.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
very positive.
I don't agree. The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted. And most masks were as good as useless.
But these arguments have been done to death. My view is they both did more harm than good. And I think in the future (assuming sanity ever returns) they will look back in amazement and wonder how it all happened. And not just regarding Covid.