Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[unident]

Elysium said:

Like a small child responding to an insult

Or an adult pointing out that the hysteria on here has proven to be just that.

[NickCQ]

unident said:

Or an adult pointing out that the hysteria on here has proven to be just that.

I think there has been hysteria on both sides...
As I recall you were quite into the "don't you care about killing grandma" line of attack at one point?

[RSTurboPaul]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but Carl Vernon picks up the judgement that there was no case to answer when a girl took a school to court for making her wear a mask, because there was no requirement for her to wear a mask (because it was never law):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCxioi0RPC8

[unident]

NickCQ said:

I think there has been hysteria on both sides...
As I recall you were quite into the "don't you care about killing grandma" line of attack at one point?

I’m pretty certain I have never used those words. I may have suggested that the need for a lockdown is to protect others, as much as themselves. I don’t think I was running around waving my arms in the air about it, others have accused me of it when it suits their rhetoric though.

[NickCQ]

unident said:

I’m pretty certain I have never used those words. I may have suggested that the need for a lockdown is to protect others, as much as themselves. I don’t think I was running around waving my arms in the air about it, others have accused me of it when it suits their rhetoric though.

You accused someone of having a "complete disregard for human life" just because they advocated a different COVID management strategy...

[48k]

markyb_lcy said:

We wont be fully “clawed out” until the government have taken advantage of the situation to force their digital ID scheme (marketed as “vaccine passports”) onto us.

AKA "photographic ID to enable citizens to vote" ??

[markyb_lcy]

48k said:

markyb_lcy said:

We wont be fully “clawed out” until the government have taken advantage of the situation to force their digital ID scheme (marketed as “vaccine passports”) onto us.

AKA "photographic ID to enable citizens to vote" ??

I admit, when I saw that voter ID requirements were being messed with, the thought crossed my mind. In any normal times I’d dismiss such a thought abruptly with “nah, they wouldn’t do that”, but these aren’t normal times, and I believe if they could make the vaccine a pre-req to voting, they actually would.

I’m perhaps being irrational here, but irrational is what we are working with.

[gareth_r]

48k said:

markyb_lcy said:

We wont be fully “clawed out” until the government have taken advantage of the situation to force their digital ID scheme (marketed as “vaccine passports”) onto us.

AKA "photographic ID to enable citizens to vote" ??

Johnson being as consistent as ever,



and definitely not scuttling off before the anyone could point out that he ignored the point of the question.

[RSTurboPaul]

gareth_r said:

48k said:

markyb_lcy said:

We wont be fully “clawed out” until the government have taken advantage of the situation to force their digital ID scheme (marketed as “vaccine passports”) onto us.

AKA "photographic ID to enable citizens to vote" ??

Johnson being as consistent as ever,



and definitely not scuttling off before the anyone could point out that he ignored the point of the question.

That is remarkable.

A journalist actually doing some journalism and not asking pre-approved questions like the BBC does.

[markyb_lcy]

gareth_r said:

48k said:

markyb_lcy said:

We wont be fully “clawed out” until the government have taken advantage of the situation to force their digital ID scheme (marketed as “vaccine passports”) onto us.

AKA "photographic ID to enable citizens to vote" ??

Johnson being as consistent as ever,



and definitely not scuttling off before the anyone could point out that he ignored the point of the question.

It’s the same arguments the US Republicans made, with the same backdrop of the voters of “the other side” being disproportionately marginalised by it and the same lack of any evidence that this solution solves any actual problem.

[unident]

NickCQ said:

You accused someone of having a "complete disregard for human life" just because they advocated a different COVID management strategy...

I’d like to see the comment in context then. Can you point me to it please.

I see the comments between yours and this reply have gone totally off the tinfoil scale again.

[NickCQ]

unident said:

I’d like to see the comment in context then. Can you point me to it please.
I see the comments between yours and this reply have gone totally off the tinfoil scale again.

15th of April in reply to a post from Elysium, which was part of a series extolling the virtues of the Great Barrington Declaration.

[unident]

NickCQ said:

unident said:

I’d like to see the comment in context then. Can you point me to it please.
I see the comments between yours and this reply have gone totally off the tinfoil scale again.

15th of April in reply to a post from Elysium, which was part of a series extolling the virtues of the Great Barrington Declaration.

And in the context of the wider discussion and what Elysium posted (as below), then I’m fine with my statement. Someone saying that his human rights are above the potential for 18,000 deaths is clearly someone who has a complete disregard for other’s lives. I don’t think my comment is any way sensationalist when viewed in context. The res too the discussion that day shows my opinions clearly too, none fo which could be taken in isolation and positioned as sensationalist.

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:

[Elysium]

unident said:

NickCQ said:

unident said:

I’d like to see the comment in context then. Can you point me to it please.
I see the comments between yours and this reply have gone totally off the tinfoil scale again.

15th of April in reply to a post from Elysium, which was part of a series extolling the virtues of the Great Barrington Declaration.

And in the context of the wider discussion and what Elysium posted (as below), then I’m fine with my statement. Someone saying that his human rights are above the potential for 18,000 deaths is clearly someone who has a complete disregard for other’s lives. I don’t think my comment is any way sensationalist when viewed in context. The res too the discussion that day shows my opinions clearly too, none fo which could be taken in isolation and positioned as sensationalist.

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:

You were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

The ONS has reported 9 consecutive weeks with deaths at or below average.

That includes 5,336 deaths 'due to' COVID over that period, despite unusually low all-cause mortality in the UK.

It is a fact of life that people die. It is a fact of life that COVID exists.

What we do in response is a choice. One that should be made rationally, balancing the need to protect life with the need to maintain freedoms and recognising that we do not have infinite resources.

When deaths are below normal levels it cannot be reasonable to restrict basic human rights to try to avoid them. We do not know if 18,000 people will die of COVID in an exit wave. However we do know that over 500k people die every single year yet we do not choose to destroy everything else in a vain attempt to prevent that.

Suggesting that this shows disregard for peoples lives is the height of hypocrisy.

When deaths are at normal levels, there is no emergency and no excuse for restrictions on our lives.

That does not mean I don't care about COVID deaths any more than your complete failure to lockdown in the past indicates you do not care about cancer or heart disease deaths.

[anonymous-user]

unident said:

I'm fine with my statement

'twas ever thus, my singular concave friend.

[unident]

Elysium said:

You were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

The ONS has reported 9 consecutive weeks with deaths at or below average.

That includes 5,336 deaths 'due to' COVID over that period, despite unusually low all-cause mortality in the UK.

It is a fact of life that people die. It is a fact of life that COVID exists.

What we do in response is a choice. One that should be made rationally, balancing the need to protect life with the need to maintain freedoms and recognising that we do not have infinite resources.

When deaths are below normal levels it cannot be reasonable to restrict basic human rights to try to avoid them. We do not know if 18,000 people will die of COVID in an exit wave. However we do know that over 500k people die every single year yet we do not choose to destroy everything else in a vain attempt to prevent that.

Suggesting that this shows disregard for peoples lives is the height of hypocrisy.

When deaths are at normal levels, there is no emergency and no excuse for restrictions on our lives.

That does not mean I don't care about COVID deaths any more than your complete failure to lockdown in the past indicates you do not care about cancer or heart disease deaths.

I started to wrote an answer then realised I can’t be bothered. You have a view, you then try to interpret some stats to suit that opinion, then claim victory. I’ll leave you to it.

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

And in the context of the wider discussion and what Elysium posted (as below), then I’m fine with my statement. Someone saying that his human rights are above the potential for 18,000 deaths is clearly someone who has a complete disregard for other’s lives. I don’t think my comment is any way sensationalist when viewed in context. The res too the discussion that day shows my opinions clearly too, none fo which could be taken in isolation and positioned as sensationalist.

Can you give us an overview of the measures and campaigning you undertook to save lives from influenza and other contagious diseases, pre-spring 2020?

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

Can you give us an overview of the measures and campaigning you undertook to save lives from influenza and other contagious diseases, pre-spring 2020?

Tired and tedious argument. I’ve done none of that for this virus either. My approach has been to call out the ridiculous conspiracy BS that many are posting on this thread.

[markyb_lcy]

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Can you give us an overview of the measures and campaigning you undertook to save lives from influenza and other contagious diseases, pre-spring 2020?

Tired and tedious argument. I’ve done none of that for this virus either. My approach has been to call out the ridiculous conspiracy BS that many are posting on this thread.

It was a question, not an "argument".

[unident]

markyb_lcy said:

unident said:

markyb_lcy said:

Can you give us an overview of the measures and campaigning you undertook to save lives from influenza and other contagious diseases, pre-spring 2020?

Tired and tedious argument. I’ve done none of that for this virus either. My approach has been to call out the ridiculous conspiracy BS that many are posting on this thread.

It was a question, not an "argument".

Tired and tedious question.