Jump to content


Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Longcol said:

A 65 year old has, on average, a life expectancy of another 15 years or so.

18.76 years if you're a man, or 21.12 years if you're a woman, according to the latest (2017-19) ONS life tables for the UK as a whole.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onewheeldave. 

The discrimination you describe in the first paragraph (thread 2184)

makes me very sad.

 

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Health and Social Care Act 2004 might have been a better choice-and less worrisome as far as Liberties and Rights are concerned-for dealing with this emergency.

However,we have the Corona Virus Act 2020.

Whatever Liberties and Rights are infringed by the Act  will have to be restored.

That means one will have to campaign for their restoration .

If HMG won't give them back ,we have to take them back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

.......we have the Corona Virus Act 2020.

Whatever Liberties and Rights are infringed by the Act  will have to be restored.

That means one will have to campaign for their restoration .

If HMG won't give them back ,we have to take them back.

 

So, if you are a private person who gave your contact details to your restaurant or pub so you could be contacted by them in case of an outbreak, knowing that they were only for that purpose, you may be very miffed if they were passed on to the police, local Council and whoever else in an information grab. 

 

Do you really think that your privacy could somehow be restored and all copies of your details be permanently deleted by everybody they get passed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not enough trained intensive care nurses. You can't conjure them up overnight.

 

2 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Didn't have the staff for the nightingale hospitals.

what i heard is they wern't needed as the original lockdown worked and cut transmissions so hospital admissions went down?

1 minute ago, Thirsty Relic said:

So, if you are a private person who gave your contact details to your restaurant or pub so you could be contacted by them in case of an outbreak, knowing that they were only for that purpose, you may be very miffed if they were passed on to the police, local Council and whoever else in an information grab. 

 

Do you really think that your privacy could somehow be restored and all copies of your details be permanently deleted by everybody they get passed to?

I take peoples details for my job in hospitality, i know for a fact we do NOTHING with them, they get locked in the office for 21 days, then like they are meant to the boss takes them to get shredded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Onewheeldave. 

The discrimination you describe in the first paragraph (thread 2184)

makes me very sad.

 

 

 

It makes me sad, and angry...

3 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

I personally know of several people [and I'm autistic, classed as socially isolated and so have much less social interaction than average] who are unable to use public transport, despite being mask exempt, due to perceived and/or actual hostility from the public, or who have been denied access to shops, again, despite being mask exempt.

 

 

...and it makes the victims sad, it is especially unfortunate as they face more than enough prejudice at the best of times, and to watch society put the boot in further as soon as there is a crisis, is quite sickening [although absolutely the norm].

 

Meanwhile the majority of the pro-lockdown public are in complete denial that it is happening.

3 hours ago, andyofborg said:

 

 

what liberties have been reduced?  for the vast majority of the population masks is not even an inconvenience. I appreciate that there are those who find it difficult but there are exemptions. 

 

Which are, for some people, being ignored.

Edited by onewheeldave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Longcol said:

To stop the NHS being totally overwhelmed by people who need hospitalisation.

 

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not enough trained intensive care nurses. You can't conjure them up overnight.

 

2 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Didn't have the staff for the nightingale hospitals.

No- it was not enough patients!

 

The nightingale hospitals were constructed on the basis of predictions of vastly greater numbers of hospitalisations which turned out to be grossly incorrect- not only were the Nightingale wards not required, neither were most of the standard NHS hospital wards closed necessary. As a result, many people with serious illnesses like cancer, were denied treatment, while the wards were empty and unused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

 

 

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Health and Social Care Act 2004 might have been a better choice-and less worrisome as far as Liberties and Rights are concerned-for dealing with this emergency.

However,we have the Corona Virus Act 2020.

Whatever Liberties and Rights are infringed by the Act  will have to be restored.

That means one will have to campaign for their restoration .

If HMG won't give them back ,we have to take them back.

 

I brought it up in response to a poster who was implying that civil liberties were not being removed- clearly they very much are.

 

Do you not think that in any one of the many historical instances where civil liberties started being stripped, leading to cruel state dictatorships and the deaths and misery of millions, that, when it first started, people would comfort themselves with 'they'll be restored when the crisis is over'? Or 'if the govt won't give them back ,we have to take them back'? Look at how actual historical instances turned out.

 

Fact is that an Act to deal with coronavirus never should have included clauses whereby it is easier to section people, should it?

 

Almost as disturbing is

a) the the vast majority of the public have got no idea that it has been done,

and

b) as soon as someone mentions the damge done to civil liberties by Covid measures, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is civil liberties were very hard won, and are very easily lost. They were not 'given' to people by those in charge, but had to be fought for. Taking them away is adictive for the power hungry. They will need to be reminded to restore them, or they will be conveniently forgotten about and remain on the statute books until they suddenly resurface in what could be a totally different context and with serious implications for the little man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onewheeldave.

I certainly do not think of you as a conspiracy theorist.

 

Quote

Do you not think that in any one of the many historical instances where civil liberties started being stripped, leading to cruel state dictatorships and the deaths and misery of millions, that, when it first started, people would comfort themselves with 'they'll be restored when the crisis is over'? Or 'if the govt won't give them back ,we have to take them back'? Look at how actual historical instances turned out.

In the above paragraphs you are asking me to speculate as to the state of mind of people in certain historical circumstances. No one can give an objective answer to that.

The final sentence ,"Look at how actual  historical  instances turned out" .

I'm puzzled by that .Are you implying  that history teaches us that  to fight the State for Rights and Liberties  that were once enjoyed is doomed to failure?

 

I'm more than convinced that the Public-when organised-are capable  of

wresting  back from the State their Liberties and Rights.

 

In fact, theirs a Petition out now to get rid of the Covid 2020 Act

 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/313310

Of course 

I subscribe to the maxim, "The price of  freedom is eternal vigilance

Quote

Fact is that an Act to deal with coronavirus never should have included clauses whereby it is easier to section people, should it?

Yes I do agree with the above point you make.

 

 

Finally, the Governments, that abide by social democratic principle do not enjoy  a condition that  puts them beyond public pressure when dealing with Policy and Law.

 

If  our Government insists on keeping aspects of the Coronavirus 2020 Act -when  no longer appropriate- that clearly infringe Rights and Liberties.

Then that is the time to apply the pressure.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-344156448/how-does-public-opinion-influence-the-law

 

 

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

Fact is that an Act to deal with coronavirus never should have included clauses whereby it is easier to section people, should it?

This was discussed before; the Act has sections in it to ensure that the mental health sector can continue to operate with an expected reduction of health care professionals due to a pandemic. You still need a healthcare professional to section someone and they need to provide proof in the report as to why the usual process of having two professionals available to section someone cannot be followed.

 

If things like this weren't in place, you'd be complaining that mental health services were operating too slowly because staff weren't available to process things quick enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2020 at 15:10, charliewag said:

The only change for us is that my missus may have to work the odd day from home to reduce the the number of people in the office. As for me, i'm still allowed to go fishing locally so i'm happy with that.

I hope its true  about what you say about fishing, are people allowed to travel to their local fishery, thinking  one person per vehicle unless carrying  another family member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the_bloke said:

If things like this weren't in place, you'd be complaining that mental health services were operating too slowly because staff weren't available to process things quick enough.

Some people will use any excuse to try and disguise the fact that the simple truth is they don't like wearing a mask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.