Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Elysium said:
I’m not sure that is right. All-cause deaths in week 13 were at a 10 year minimum, despite the NHS not being at full capacity. Since the end of Feb the number of people dying has been lower than usual. COVID is a new cause of death, but it’s no longer causing additional death.
I don't think the last statement there necessarily follows logically from the first two facts, depending on what you mean by "additional".Elysium said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
This may be a controversial view, but I do not see any reason why the possibility of an additional 18k COVID deaths as part of an 'exit wave' justifies a single day of further restrictions.
I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
Your first sentence is why you’re not making the decisions. A complete disregard for human life seems very much at odds with your constant moaning about human rights. I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
There is nothing in my post to suggest a disregard for human life. I just understand that death is a normal part of it.
jm doc said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
This may be a controversial view, but I do not see any reason why the possibility of an additional 18k COVID deaths as part of an 'exit wave' justifies a single day of further restrictions.
I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
Your first sentence is why you’re not making the decisions. A complete disregard for human life seems very much at odds with your constant moaning about human rights. I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
Have you any idea how many people are dying and going to die as a result of this lockdown? Please tell us as otherwise you cannot make any comment on this without looking like a complete and utter moron.
Any chance you could stop dancing around and tell us explicitly whether you really are a medical doctor or not. I see you’re implying it but shying away from being explicit again. I wonder why
unident said:
Elysium said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
This may be a controversial view, but I do not see any reason why the possibility of an additional 18k COVID deaths as part of an 'exit wave' justifies a single day of further restrictions.
I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
Your first sentence is why you’re not making the decisions. A complete disregard for human life seems very much at odds with your constant moaning about human rights. I do not believe that is a 'justifed and proportionate' reason for our human rights to be suspended. Particularly at a time when all-cause deaths are at a 10 year minimum and are averaging 10% below 'normal' over the last 4 weeks:
There is nothing in my post to suggest a disregard for human life. I just understand that death is a normal part of it.
We have not seen any deaths above the normal level since late February, despite the fact that around 4,500 'due to' COVID deaths were recorded over the following 5 weeks. As of week 13 all-cause deaths are at a 10 year low.
As I have already noted, COVID is still a cause of death in England and Wales, but it does not appear to have been a cause of additional death for a considerable time.
When deaths are well below normal levels it is completely unreasonable to continue to restrict the human rights of 67,000,000 people because it MIGHT postpone future deaths from a specific disease.
I think it is rather more important to allow everyone in this country to live, particularly the elderly and vulnerable who have been deprived of human contact for over a year, than to try to minimise deaths still further by maintaining the most intrusive restrictions in our democratic history.
134k people have already died of other causes in 2021. We are not turning society upside down to protect them and I don't see why the theoretical exit wave should be any different.
I am not showing disregard for human life. I am simply being realistic about the fact that at some point, for every one of us, it is going to end. We are all going to die of something.
NickCQ said:
Elysium said:
I’m not sure that is right. All-cause deaths in week 13 were at a 10 year minimum, despite the NHS not being at full capacity. Since the end of Feb the number of people dying has been lower than usual. COVID is a new cause of death, but it’s no longer causing additional death.
I don't think the last statement there necessarily follows logically from the first two facts, depending on what you mean by "additional".The death rate in this country is suprisingly stable and very low levels of deaths are just as remarkable as very high levels. Particularly if you are trying to argue you are in a pandemic when deaths are at a 10 year low.
Elysium said:
Death is a fact of life.
We have not seen any deaths above the normal level since late February, despite the fact that around 4,500 'due to' COVID deaths were recorded over the following 5 weeks. As of week 13 all-cause deaths are at a 10 year low.
As I have already noted, COVID is still a cause of death in England and Wales, but it does not appear to have been a cause of additional death for a considerable time.
When deaths are well below normal levels it is completely unreasonable to continue to restrict the human rights of 67,000,000 people because it MIGHT postpone future deaths from a specific disease.
I think it is rather more important to allow everyone in this country to live, particularly the elderly and vulnerable who have been deprived of human contact for over a year, than to try to minimise deaths still further by maintaining the most intrusive restrictions in our democratic history.
134k people have already died of other causes in 2021. We are not turning society upside down to protect them and I don't see why the theoretical exit wave should be any different.
I am not showing disregard for human life. I am simply being realistic about the fact that at some point, for every one of us, it is going to end. We are all going to die of something.
Again, it’s overly simplistic. Death is a fact of life. Dying prematurely isn’t. You may see these potential 18,000 deaths as collateral damage for being able to go to the pub, or the shop, or whatever, others opinions will differ. Some of those with differing opinions will have jobs that involve making those tough decisions, others will just disagree with you. You believe you’re right, because you’re taking a tough stance on this, I think you’re wrong. That’s where it’s simple, the rest really isn’t. We have not seen any deaths above the normal level since late February, despite the fact that around 4,500 'due to' COVID deaths were recorded over the following 5 weeks. As of week 13 all-cause deaths are at a 10 year low.
As I have already noted, COVID is still a cause of death in England and Wales, but it does not appear to have been a cause of additional death for a considerable time.
When deaths are well below normal levels it is completely unreasonable to continue to restrict the human rights of 67,000,000 people because it MIGHT postpone future deaths from a specific disease.
I think it is rather more important to allow everyone in this country to live, particularly the elderly and vulnerable who have been deprived of human contact for over a year, than to try to minimise deaths still further by maintaining the most intrusive restrictions in our democratic history.
134k people have already died of other causes in 2021. We are not turning society upside down to protect them and I don't see why the theoretical exit wave should be any different.
I am not showing disregard for human life. I am simply being realistic about the fact that at some point, for every one of us, it is going to end. We are all going to die of something.
unident said:
Again, it’s overly simplistic. Death is a fact of life. Dying prematurely isn’t. You may see these potential 18,000 deaths as collateral damage for being able to go to the pub, or the shop, or whatever, others opinions will differ. Some of those with differing opinions will have jobs that involve making those tough decisions, others will just disagree with you. You believe you’re right, because you’re taking a tough stance on this, I think you’re wrong. That’s where it’s simple, the rest really isn’t.
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Elysium said:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
You’re choosing to interpret the statistics the way you want to interpret them. For example, you state “it’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely.......” that’s plainly rubbish. It’s very easy to argue just that and there are people dying who are younger than the norm. This happens all the time, and so it’s easy to argue that people are dying prematurely, simply because they always do. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Your viewpoint isn’t rational. It’s what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it correct or rational.
unident said:
Elysium said:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
You’re choosing to interpret the statistics the way you want to interpret them. For example, you state “it’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely.......” that’s plainly rubbish. It’s very easy to argue just that and there are people dying who are younger than the norm. This happens all the time, and so it’s easy to argue that people are dying prematurely, simply because they always do. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Your viewpoint isn’t rational. It’s what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it correct or rational.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 15th April 21:48
Elysium said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
You’re choosing to interpret the statistics the way you want to interpret them. For example, you state “it’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely.......” that’s plainly rubbish. It’s very easy to argue just that and there are people dying who are younger than the norm. This happens all the time, and so it’s easy to argue that people are dying prematurely, simply because they always do. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Your viewpoint isn’t rational. It’s what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it correct or rational.
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
unident said:
These are your exact words:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
What is your concern around young people? Are you claiming there are a disproportionate number of young people dying at the moment from Covid? What's the issue you say exists?It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
unident said:
These are your exact words:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
What is your concern around young people? Are you claiming there are a disproportionate number of young people dying at the moment from Covid? What's the issue you say exists?It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
Elysium is claiming that it’s very difficult to argue something that isn’t difficulty at all.
unident said:
Elysium said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
You’re choosing to interpret the statistics the way you want to interpret them. For example, you state “it’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely.......” that’s plainly rubbish. It’s very easy to argue just that and there are people dying who are younger than the norm. This happens all the time, and so it’s easy to argue that people are dying prematurely, simply because they always do. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Your viewpoint isn’t rational. It’s what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it correct or rational.
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
Elysium said:
How would you define a ‘premature’ death?
Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
Average life expectancy. Anyone dying before then could be considered a premature death. Simplistically speaking you’d argue that half of deaths are therefore premature. So let’s be a bit more scientific. Anyone dying before a specific age, let’s pick 40 who hasn’t got a genetic disease that’s likely to kill them early. Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
My point this that even if a healthy 25 year old dies in a car crash then that rubbishes your claim that it’s “difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely” it’s not, it’s quite clear in that example that someone has died prematurely.
unident said:
Elysium said:
How would you define a ‘premature’ death?
Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
Average life expectancy. Anyone dying before then could be considered a premature death. Simplistically speaking you’d argue that half of deaths are therefore premature. So let’s be a bit more scientific. Anyone dying before a specific age, let’s pick 40 who hasn’t got a genetic disease that’s likely to kill them early. Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
My point this that even if a healthy 25 year old dies in a car crash then that rubbishes your claim that it’s “difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely” it’s not, it’s quite clear in that example that someone has died prematurely.
jm doc said:
Open your eyes and look around, deaths from covid are minimal, hospital admissions are very low, infection rates are very low, everyone at risk is vaccinated, the most at risk twice. Yet we are still subjected to the most draconian of restrictions that 18 months ago were almost inconceivable. You are free to stay at home if you are worried about covid, this government has no legitimate right to continue with this and has lost all credibility. I'll say again, show us the evidence and show us the impact assessments on the health of the population and the economy for the next 20 years.
1. I don’t stay at home2. I’m not worried about Covid. I’d rather not catch it, but I’m happy to act sensibly
3. The rules are being relaxed
4. I don’t have to show you anything. I don’t make the rules.
5. “Open your eyes” Really? Maybe say MSM, or sheeple and you’ll be using the Tommy Robinson soundbites perfectly.
6. Vaccination really should only be considered completed when those who need to, have had it twice. A doctor should know that. See below.
However most importantly. You still continue to shy away from answering a very simple question about whether you really are a medical doctor or not. Seems strange that you go out of your way to refuse to answer this question.
unident said:
Elysium said:
unident said:
Elysium said:
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
You’re choosing to interpret the statistics the way you want to interpret them. For example, you state “it’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely.......” that’s plainly rubbish. It’s very easy to argue just that and there are people dying who are younger than the norm. This happens all the time, and so it’s easy to argue that people are dying prematurely, simply because they always do. These deaths may never occur. They are a possible scenario described in a mathematical model. They are not even based on the most likely scenario.
Even if these deaths become real, prolonging restrictions will not prevent them. If we are going to return to normal life at some point then further deaths from Coronavirus will inevitably occur.
Mine is a perfectly rational viewpoint. You may not agree, but your attempts to rubbish my argument by accusing me of having no regard for human life or ‘just wanting to go to the pub’ are completely out of order.
I am not making the decisions, which is a shame, because I think the people who are making them are acting in their own interests and not those of the country.
Your viewpoint isn’t rational. It’s what you want to believe. That doesn’t make it correct or rational.
It’s very difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely when all-cause deaths are at a ten year low.
You didn’t mention norms. Now what you’re doing is once again trying to interpret stats to suit your narrative. You can play the hard man, you can play the concerned for human rights, or whatever justification you want to, but you’re wrong.
unident said:
Elysium said:
How would you define a ‘premature’ death?
Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
Average life expectancy. Anyone dying before then could be considered a premature death. Simplistically speaking you’d argue that half of deaths are therefore premature. So let’s be a bit more scientific. Anyone dying before a specific age, let’s pick 40 who hasn’t got a genetic disease that’s likely to kill them early. Can any death from natural causes ever be premature and who on earth would be qualified to decide?
My point this that even if a healthy 25 year old dies in a car crash then that rubbishes your claim that it’s “difficult to argue that anyone is dying prematurely” it’s not, it’s quite clear in that example that someone has died prematurely.
That’s not what we were talking about though.
Can police forces using ANPR to keep tabs on vehicles to ensure that only essential journeys are made be linked to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria stating she wants all motorcycles to be fitted with trackers?
It seems the OP justifies dressing up in leather because he owns a Moto Guzzi and Moto Morini. Given the OP admits to wobbling about on a motorcycle could trackers be justified on the basis of helping the emergency services find and help him if he has a life threatening mishap while exercising his freedom of choice to wobble about on his motorcycles?
It seems the OP justifies dressing up in leather because he owns a Moto Guzzi and Moto Morini. Given the OP admits to wobbling about on a motorcycle could trackers be justified on the basis of helping the emergency services find and help him if he has a life threatening mishap while exercising his freedom of choice to wobble about on his motorcycles?
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 15th April 23:46
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff