COVID THREAD

[trastrick 866]

Duplicate Post

Edited December 18, 2021 by trastrick

[trastrick 866]

Just now, RJRB said:

It’s good to see that you recognise the various considerations of Science/Politicians/Businesses.

However,this truth has not escaped most people.

 

 

So we hover somewhere between effin overcaution,effin fecklessness,and effin recklessness depending on your point of view.

A good summary of the 77 pages of arguments and opinions, on the effectiveness of vaccines.

 

I would add, when all this is over, Western governments will be able to institute any manner of mandated policies, deemed in the name of Public Safety. The precedent have been set.

 

Do you really need to go out for a drive on a Sunday afternoon, given the death and injury that occurs on highways, and fills up so many hospital beds, adding to the mayhem, that prevents an overworked and overburdened NHS from the proper care of others?

 

Do you really need that barbeque in your backyard adding to carcinogenic cancers, and carbon emissions that are killing the planet?

 

How selfish do you want to be?

[melthebell 864]

12 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Where will you go ?

Round the empty streets, having a look at the closed shops 😁

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It was Longcol who was implying that Republican states had fewer restrictions, and I thought he was right anyway. I'm just providing data which indicates it is not having much of an effect either way.

You said that for the top ten states in that list the average death rate/million for the four Democrat states was higher than the six Republican states?  Those Democrat states are New York, New Jersey, Georgia and Arizona.  And that the Democrat states have harsher 'suppression measures'.  Is that right?

[hackey lad 3,991]

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

Round the empty streets, having a look at the closed shops 😁

Shouting at trees whilst he does 

[Michael_W 11]

They can't keep shutting down large chunks of the economy, jobs, livelihoods and mental health need to be protected, keep everything open with social distancing measures rather than lockdown, the vaccination programme was supposed to prevent the need for such drastic measures, this nonsense could just go on and on otherwise, it's interesting that many of those shouting loudest about needing lockdowns seem generally safe in the knowledge that their income won't take a hit!

[HeHasRisen 3,411]

4 minutes ago, Michael_W said:

They can't keep shutting down large chunks of the economy, jobs, livelihoods and mental health need to be protected, keep everything open with social distancing measures rather than lockdown, the vaccination programme was supposed to prevent the need for such drastic measures, this nonsense could just go on and on otherwise, it's interesting that many of those shouting loudest about needing lockdowns seem generally safe in the knowledge that their income won't take a hit!

My income certainly wont take a hit but I can see the bigger picture. But you are generally right, you dont see those on minimum wage likely to need furlough bailouts clamouring for it again, especially if they are only going to get 80%

[Organgrinder 1,946]

4 minutes ago, Michael_W said:

They can't keep shutting down large chunks of the economy, jobs, livelihoods and mental health need to be protected, keep everything open with social distancing measures rather than lockdown, the vaccination programme was supposed to prevent the need for such drastic measures, this nonsense could just go on and on otherwise, it's interesting that many of those shouting loudest about needing lockdowns seem generally safe in the knowledge that their income won't take a hit!

I fully agree with that but, there are so many people who will not wear masks and will not follow social distancing and are so determined that their life is not going to change at all.

If everyone had been as responsible as they should then Covid would now be a minor problem instead of a major one.

[The Joker 10]

20 minutes ago, Michael_W said:

. . . it's interesting that many of those shouting loudest about needing lockdowns seem generally safe in the knowledge that their income won't take a hit!

 

16 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

. . . you dont see those on minimum wage likely to need furlough bailouts clamouring for it again, especially if they are only going to get 80%

like the doctors and nurses?  err, I'll have a think about what their intentions could be . . .

 

[Chekhov 488]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

It’s good to see that you recognise the various considerations of Science/Politicians/Businesses.

However,this truth has not escaped most people.

So we hover somewhere between effin overcaution, effin fecklessness, and effin recklessness depending on your point of view.

You mean suppressionists who consider anyone who wants to get back to normal as one level short of the devil. 

What I said about these "experts" is patently correct, in fact even they, when asked about it, admit it "my speciality is virology (or whatever) it's not for me to comment on the economy, or people's rights (or whatever)." That, they correctly say, is for the politicians. But the politicians don't want to take responsibility (esp now they have the population so petrified) so they effectively pass it back to the scientists. 

Why are you arguing with this, ? It is unarguable.

1 hour ago, Hecate said:

You said that for the top ten states in that list the average death rate/million for the four Democrat states was higher than the six Republican states?  Those Democrat states are New York, New Jersey, Georgia and Arizona.  And that the Democrat states have harsher 'suppression measures'.  Is that right?

That is what Longcol was implying. I thought that was correct and that is Greg Swenson (of Republicans Abroad) was saying on the radio the other month.

[RJRB 688]

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You mean suppressionists who consider anyone who wants to get back to normal as one level short of the devil. 

What I said about these "experts" is patently correct, in fact even they, when asked about it, admit it "my speciality is virology (or whatever) it's not for me to comment on the economy, or people's rights (or whatever)." That, they correctly say, is for the politicians. But the politicians don't want to take responsibility (esp now they have the population so petrified) so they effectively pass it back to the scientists. 

Why are you arguing with this, ? It is unarguable.

 

I thought that I was endorsing it as being blindingly obvious rather than a revelation 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That is what Longcol was implying. I thought that was correct and that is Greg Swenson (of Republicans Abroad) was saying on the radio the other month.

So your argument here is that even though those four states allegedly have 'harsher suppression measures' they still have a higher average death rate/million?