The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
When does the population decide this is serious, but not in the way we've been told, and decide to do something about it?
It's incredibly frustrating watching government after government around the world follow one another into an evermore glamerous garment from the Emporer's wardrobe. I really dont understand how rank stupity is being not only ignored, but actively promoted?
It's incredibly frustrating watching government after government around the world follow one another into an evermore glamerous garment from the Emporer's wardrobe. I really dont understand how rank stupity is being not only ignored, but actively promoted?
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
When does the population decide this is serious, but not in the way we've been told, and decide to do something about it?
It's incredibly frustrating watching government after government around the world follow one another into an evermore glamerous garment from the Emporer's wardrobe. I really dont understand how rank stupity is being not only ignored, but actively promoted?
What do you suggest?It's incredibly frustrating watching government after government around the world follow one another into an evermore glamerous garment from the Emporer's wardrobe. I really dont understand how rank stupity is being not only ignored, but actively promoted?
There are plenty of threads where this has been debated to high heaven . I'm on the side that we accept it's just another disease that we have to live with and we allow life to continue.
Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
There are plenty of threads where this has been debated to high heaven . I'm on the side that we accept it's just another disease that we have to live with and we allow life to continue.
Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
I don't disagree that we have to live with it.Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
I was asking your opinion, as a fairly highly educated person as to what the "something" is that you might propose?
Mass ignoring of the guidance? Civil unrest? A govt of national unity?
None of those will happen.
I assume continued on and off lockdowns until next summer or beyond. Then eventually the hopeless idiots might realise that their hopelessly idiotic plan of hide and wait to be rescued by a vaccine is hopelessly idiotic.
Inter generational fairness is so fun! In 2016 a bunch of old people f
ked all their grandchildren. In 2020 a bunch of middle aged people choose to fk all the young people on behalf of all the old people, some of whom object to this being done in their name .
I assume continued on and off lockdowns until next summer or beyond. Then eventually the hopeless idiots might realise that their hopelessly idiotic plan of hide and wait to be rescued by a vaccine is hopelessly idiotic.
Inter generational fairness is so fun! In 2016 a bunch of old people f
ked all their grandchildren. In 2020 a bunch of middle aged people choose to fk all the young people on behalf of all the old people, some of whom object to this being done in their name .vaud said:
I don't disagree that we have to live with it.
I was asking your opinion, as a fairly highly educated person as to what the "something" is that you might propose?
Mass ignoring of the guidance? Civil unrest? A govt of national unity?
Ah. I think the press should grow some balls and do what they're supposed to- report the facts in a balanced fashion. Refuse to tow the line. I was asking your opinion, as a fairly highly educated person as to what the "something" is that you might propose?
Mass ignoring of the guidance? Civil unrest? A govt of national unity?
People should peacefully protest, yet not enough of them yet believe they're being lied to and those who have been pritesting have largely been professionally protesty nutters.
The removal of freedoms should be tested in the courts again, this time with the benefit of a lot more data (including that surrounding the collateral harm caused by lockdowns).
Societies generally sleepwalk into submission. It can be very damaging and bloodythirsty when they're woken up.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
There are plenty of threads where this has been debated to high heaven . I'm on the side that we accept it's just another disease that we have to live with and we allow life to continue.
Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
Spot on.Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
We pay for a health service, whose capacity was (initially) and still could be increased. Let’s use the health system for its stated purpose rather than destroy our country “protecting” it from being used.
I feel a little for the decision makers. Take Boris, no matter what 'other' evidence (it was reported some weeks ago that he met with the Swedish epidemiologist and Carl heneghan from OCEB) and opinion there is, his primary advisory body for this is SAGE. And sage are all too willing to keep publically saying that tens of thousands are about to die and X needs to be done. The opposition are at it as well. Plus every other country is marching to the same tune.
Very difficult to ignore. Safer from a self preservation stand point to go along with it.
I do wonder what % of my child's future tax payments will actually be available to fund the NHS in the future, by the time he's paid for the interest on the debts that are being accumulated now.
Very difficult to ignore. Safer from a self preservation stand point to go along with it.
I do wonder what % of my child's future tax payments will actually be available to fund the NHS in the future, by the time he's paid for the interest on the debts that are being accumulated now.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
There are plenty of threads where this has been debated to high heaven . I'm on the side that we accept it's just another disease that we have to live with and we allow life to continue.
Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
The thing that anyone proposing this view is missing is that you’re more or less getting that anyway. The virus is spreading exponentially, so you’re getting the chance for it to run free. Meanwhile the other side are getting their wish with lockdowns (in various guises) that they can comply with. Our freedoms should only be removed when the risk to us all collectively overrides them. That isn't the case here and is no longer justifiable.
Both sides should be happy, but it seems unless both get absolutes neither is.
unident said:
The thing that anyone proposing this view is missing is that you’re more or less getting that anyway. The virus is spreading exponentially, so you’re getting the chance for it to run free. Meanwhile the other side are getting their wish with lockdowns (in various guises) that they can comply with.
Both sides should be happy, but it seems unless both get absolutes neither is.
Eh? We're having the worst of all worlds. The lockdowns restrict our freedoms and restrain our well being. Why should I be happy having my freedoms removed due to a virus that is unlikely to cause me or my family any harm?Both sides should be happy, but it seems unless both get absolutes neither is.
Without wishing to be all American Constitution about it, there are certain liberties that are foundational to the U.K. We might not (necessarily) benefit from not having them succinctly codified, but they’re there. And there may be circumstances where it’s is to the benefit of society that those are limited in some way. But those limitations should be based on a balanced assessment and be for a specific purpose, for a specific time and with clearly defined oversight.
What started as “protecting the NHS” (generally inferred to be from being overwhelmed by COVID cases) is now, well, what? The Government does not appear to seeking opposing views and then explaining its judgements in the context of contradictory evidence. The level of scrutiny is appallingly low. Finally, they’re so invested in the status quo that they’ve lost the opportunity not to say when this will end but just to give themselves a defined point for a re-evaluation (which would have been politically useful in the event they want to change direction).
We are being treated like children.
What started as “protecting the NHS” (generally inferred to be from being overwhelmed by COVID cases) is now, well, what? The Government does not appear to seeking opposing views and then explaining its judgements in the context of contradictory evidence. The level of scrutiny is appallingly low. Finally, they’re so invested in the status quo that they’ve lost the opportunity not to say when this will end but just to give themselves a defined point for a re-evaluation (which would have been politically useful in the event they want to change direction).
We are being treated like children.
The US Constitution was of course heavily influenced by the British Constitution as it was after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and by the writings of John Locke. Locke's arguments about lawful disobedience to tyranny have been misinterpreted by the armed right in the US, but in the UK Locke is all but forgotten.
As Ronald observes above, the only street-protesters against the current madness are themselves nutty types who are permanent protesters, and often very unappetising types who espouse either far right or far left conspiracy nonsense. This allows the cynical authoritarians, and also ill-educated and credulous people who are genuinely terrified of the virus, because they lack the critical reasoning skills to see that they are being bamboozled, to brand all criticism of the current policy as based on mad conspiracies. In fact, it is the policy that has a poor evidential foundation. SAGE is not a conspiracy theory factory, but it is a factory that produces nothing but poorly-evidenced prophecies of doom, and it is far too influenced by modellers of the same kind who got Mad Cow Disease and Foot and Mouth so badly wrong.
As Ronald observes above, the only street-protesters against the current madness are themselves nutty types who are permanent protesters, and often very unappetising types who espouse either far right or far left conspiracy nonsense. This allows the cynical authoritarians, and also ill-educated and credulous people who are genuinely terrified of the virus, because they lack the critical reasoning skills to see that they are being bamboozled, to brand all criticism of the current policy as based on mad conspiracies. In fact, it is the policy that has a poor evidential foundation. SAGE is not a conspiracy theory factory, but it is a factory that produces nothing but poorly-evidenced prophecies of doom, and it is far too influenced by modellers of the same kind who got Mad Cow Disease and Foot and Mouth so badly wrong.
Agreed. Sage is, naturally enough, highly invested in its recent advice, which is underpinned by its modelling. I don’t criticise Sage itself, other than perhaps for being overly model driven when it’s obvious that models cannot logically encompass all of the second, third, etc order effects of such a complex and uncertain problem. In the beginning that was all that was available to the Government and so I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt for almost universally following Sage’s advice.
But it’s unforgivable that this hasn’t matured into a more balanced and considered approach given the time that has now elapsed.
But it’s unforgivable that this hasn’t matured into a more balanced and considered approach given the time that has now elapsed.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Eh? We're having the worst of all worlds. The lockdowns restrict our freedoms and restrain our well being. Why should I be happy having my freedoms removed due to a virus that is unlikely to cause me or my family any harm?
Me, me, me, me, meChildren around 5 years old become socially aware enough to realise that the world doesn’t revolve around them.
unident said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Eh? We're having the worst of all worlds. The lockdowns restrict our freedoms and restrain our well being. Why should I be happy having my freedoms removed due to a virus that is unlikely to cause me or my family any harm?
Me, me, me, me, meChildren around 5 years old become socially aware enough to realise that the world doesn’t revolve around them.
Just saying.
unident said:
Me, me, me, me, me
Children around 5 years old become socially aware enough to realise that the world doesn’t revolve around them.
Us, us, us, us, us. We are all being restricted on a false premise and those restrictions are more than likely to be causing more short, medium and long term damage to society than the virus they purport to protect us from.Children around 5 years old become socially aware enough to realise that the world doesn’t revolve around them.
That you enjoy people being restricted says more about you than you might like.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Us, us, us, us, us. We are all being restricted on a false premise and those restrictions are more than likely to be causing more short, medium and long term damage to society than the virus they purport to protect us from.
That you enjoy people being restricted says more about you than you might like.
Where have I said I “enjoy people being restricted”? The answer is nowhere, but as per usual you and others have to jump to the opposite extreme of your views, rather than accept some people can have moderate views that sit somewhere around the middle of the debate. You’ve decided it’s a false premise, that’s your opinion, it’s not a fact. For anyone you can find who agrees with you, there will be at least one more (and more than likely dozens) who disagree, but aren’t as vocal. That you enjoy people being restricted says more about you than you might like.
In any case your post I quoted was more Violet Elizabeth Bott than making any sort of valid point.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff