CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Anyone ready for the sequel? Better stock up on toilet paper...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/clusters-of-myst...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/clusters-of-myst...
g3org3y said:
Wow, so terrifying people into isolation and inactivity had negative consequences?TameRacingDriver said:
Anyone ready for the sequel? Better stock up on toilet paper...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/clusters-of-myst...
Doctors are baffled.https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/clusters-of-myst...
jameswills said:
Compliance through fear is an upside? Interesting language.
See also:Guardian said:
“The finding that people who complied with pandemic restrictions are more likely to have poorer mental health three years on is deeply disturbing.
“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
So those not complying with restrictions that had little, if not zero, provable benefits are causing 'loss of social solidarity'? Ok then.“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
Guardian said:
Mark Winstanley, the chief executive of the charity Rethink Mental Illness, said: “The early days of the pandemic were characterised by significant disruption, uncertainty and a lack of control, factors which can all fuel anxiety and low mood.
“It’s important to recognise that those who took the greatest steps to protect themselves and others have seen an enduring impact on their mental health.
So those not complying with restrictions that had little, if not zero, provable benefits were not 'protect[ing] themselves and others'? Got it.“It’s important to recognise that those who took the greatest steps to protect themselves and others have seen an enduring impact on their mental health.
RSTurboPaul said:
jameswills said:
Compliance through fear is an upside? Interesting language.
See also:Guardian said:
“The finding that people who complied with pandemic restrictions are more likely to have poorer mental health three years on is deeply disturbing.
“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
So those not complying with restrictions that had little, if not zero, provable benefits are causing 'loss of social solidarity'? Ok then.“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
Guardian said:
Mark Winstanley, the chief executive of the charity Rethink Mental Illness, said: “The early days of the pandemic were characterised by significant disruption, uncertainty and a lack of control, factors which can all fuel anxiety and low mood.
“It’s important to recognise that those who took the greatest steps to protect themselves and others have seen an enduring impact on their mental health.
So those not complying with restrictions that had little, if not zero, provable benefits were not 'protect[ing] themselves and others'? Got it.“It’s important to recognise that those who took the greatest steps to protect themselves and others have seen an enduring impact on their mental health.
RSTurboPaul said:
Guardian said:
“The finding that people who complied with pandemic restrictions are more likely to have poorer mental health three years on is deeply disturbing.
“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
So those not complying with restrictions that had little, if not zero, provable benefits are causing 'loss of social solidarity'? Ok then.“The fear, loss and trauma created by the pandemic are having a lasting impact on many people’s mental health. For some, this may have been exacerbated by the loss of social solidarity from seeing others not complying with the same restrictions,” said Andy Bell, its chief executive.
No mention whatsoever of the policy-by-social-media merchants who implemented knee-jerk reactions to squealing Karens bleating about murdering grannies on Facebook, nor when science was superceded by The Science, carefully planned pandemic preparedness documents were thrown out the window, and Chinese-style lockdowns implemented against the entire population? It remains the fault of those who looked at all that and said "no"... okay Guardian. Not even useful as chip wrappers.
jameswills said:
It’s like we’ve been living in an alternate universe isn’t it 
I'm still struggling with the seeming desire of the inquiry to lock down earlier and harder (and for longer, natch) despite all the "unforseen" damage lockdowns do coming to the fore.Apart from anything else, we haven't got the money for another round of furlough and lockdown. On that basis alone, we need to come up with something better next time.
I think even entertaining the inquiry is a waste of time. It’s purely an exercise to cleanse the sins of those that were in charge. They can all claim they were only doing their best, no lessons learned, no repercussions. And we all pay for it..... again.
I’m not even remotely interested in following it personally. No one is going to follow a lockdown again, very few people have trust in the government or any institution attached to it (including the health service) if you actually talk to real people.
I’m not even remotely interested in following it personally. No one is going to follow a lockdown again, very few people have trust in the government or any institution attached to it (including the health service) if you actually talk to real people.
jameswills said:
I think even entertaining the inquiry is a waste of time. It’s purely an exercise to cleanse the sins of those that were in charge. They can all claim they were only doing their best, no lessons learned, no repercussions. And we all pay for it..... again.
I’m not even remotely interested in following it personally. No one is going to follow a lockdown again, very few people have trust in the government or any institution attached to it (including the health service) if you actually talk to real people.
These words are the truth.I’m not even remotely interested in following it personally. No one is going to follow a lockdown again, very few people have trust in the government or any institution attached to it (including the health service) if you actually talk to real people.
Nobody really cares.
johnboy1975 said:
I'm still struggling with the seeming desire of the inquiry to lock down earlier and harder (and for longer, natch) despite all the "unforseen" damage lockdowns do coming to the fore.
Apart from anything else, we haven't got the money for another round of furlough and lockdown. On that basis alone, we need to come up with something better next time.
If you start with the assumption that this is an honest enquiry attempting to review what happened and see how it could be done better then it never will make sense. It's a stitch up designed to give them more power.Apart from anything else, we haven't got the money for another round of furlough and lockdown. On that basis alone, we need to come up with something better next time.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
johnboy1975 said:
I'm still struggling with the seeming desire of the inquiry to lock down earlier and harder (and for longer, natch) despite all the "unforseen" damage lockdowns do coming to the fore.
Apart from anything else, we haven't got the money for another round of furlough and lockdown. On that basis alone, we need to come up with something better next time.
If you start with the assumption that this is an honest enquiry attempting to review what happened and see how it could be done better then it never will make sense. It's a stitch up designed to give them more power.Apart from anything else, we haven't got the money for another round of furlough and lockdown. On that basis alone, we need to come up with something better next time.
Randy Winkman said:
So far it hasn't made our leaders look good though. Or do you think it has?
World peace and the perpetual motion machine couldn't make our current lot look good. They're sacrificial goats. But they'll end up looking bad not because they pissed billions of pounds up a wall and trampled on just about every freedom we had but because they didn't do it fast or severely enough. The whole exercise will end up finding that we need a global digital ID and pandemic alert system telling us what level of lockdown we need and a constant supply of vaccines regularly updated.
And lo, they shall appear. Very reasonable price, cost plus, safe and effective.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 23 November 21:34
JuanCarlosFandango said:
But they'll end up looking bad not because they pissed billions of pounds up a wall and trampled on just about every freedom we had but because they didn't do it fast or severely enough.
The whole exercise will end up finding that we need a global digital ID and pandemic alert system telling us what level of lockdown we need and a constant supply of vaccines regularly updated.
And lo, they shall appear. Very reasonable price, cost plus, safe and effective.
Possibly the best summation of the whole sThe whole exercise will end up finding that we need a global digital ID and pandemic alert system telling us what level of lockdown we need and a constant supply of vaccines regularly updated.
And lo, they shall appear. Very reasonable price, cost plus, safe and effective.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 23 November 21:34
t show, especially the bold
The re emergence of the chicken pox vaccine dovetails nicely into the 2nd paragraph.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Randy Winkman said:
So far it hasn't made our leaders look good though. Or do you think it has?
World peace and the perpetual motion machine couldn't make our current lot look good. They're sacrificial goats. But they'll end up looking bad not because they pissed billions of pounds up a wall and trampled on just about every freedom we had but because they didn't do it fast or severely enough. The whole exercise will end up finding that we need a global digital ID and pandemic alert system telling us what level of lockdown we need and a constant supply of vaccines regularly updated.
And lo, they shall appear. Very reasonable price, cost plus, safe and effective.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 23 November 21:34
k would politicians know about virology, pandemic management......??? They'll do whatever holds them in power for the longest.rodericb said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Randy Winkman said:
So far it hasn't made our leaders look good though. Or do you think it has?
World peace and the perpetual motion machine couldn't make our current lot look good. They're sacrificial goats. But they'll end up looking bad not because they pissed billions of pounds up a wall and trampled on just about every freedom we had but because they didn't do it fast or severely enough. The whole exercise will end up finding that we need a global digital ID and pandemic alert system telling us what level of lockdown we need and a constant supply of vaccines regularly updated.
And lo, they shall appear. Very reasonable price, cost plus, safe and effective.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Thursday 23 November 21:34
k would politicians know about virology, pandemic management......??? They'll do whatever holds them in power for the longest.Randy Winkman said:
No particular thought went into the "our leaders" phrase. I'm just responding to the statement "It's a stitch up designed to give them more power.". From what I've heard from the enquiry so far I don't think it gives the public any appetite to give those with authority "more power".
Maybe not this lot but the really nice, sensible, honest lot we'll elect next year will sensibly follow all their recommendations to sign the treaties and appoint the experts to make it all right next time.JuanCarlosFandango said:
Randy Winkman said:
No particular thought went into the "our leaders" phrase. I'm just responding to the statement "It's a stitch up designed to give them more power.". From what I've heard from the enquiry so far I don't think it gives the public any appetite to give those with authority "more power".
Maybe not this lot but the really nice, sensible, honest lot we'll elect next year will sensibly follow all their recommendations to sign the treaties and appoint the experts to make it all right next time.(Point of order, we are fully signed up with "this lot" I believe?)
Not fully following but New Zealand have voted against the WHO directives / framework (I think?)
Has the power balance shifted politically in NZ? Think Ardern was set to lose the election before deciding to quit? Again not up to speed on this. Guess I need to do more research...Apparently they don't have a government at the moment, so I take it Labour list / didn't win an overall majority. Ardern's timing impeccable then
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff