Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
unident said:
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. NGee said:
Thank f
k for that. Although I notice that unfortunately you have already bothered to wrote (sic) 2 more posts.
However to be fair I can understand why you don't take any notice of your own garbage.
QWERTYUIOP next to each other on a standard keyboard so an easy mistake to make of course that won’t matter as you think you’re 1-0 up.k for that. Although I notice that unfortunately you have already bothered to wrote (sic) 2 more posts.However to be fair I can understand why you don't take any notice of your own garbage.
Upset the your god has gone to pastures new, so have to resort to the insults?
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?
Given that 'flu kills 10-20k in a normal season and COVID killed something like 150k last year (despite extreme preventative measures), can you give us an overview of why you think it's in any way a relevant comparator?NickCQ said:
Given that 'flu kills 10-20k in a normal season and COVID killed something like 150k last year (despite extreme preventative measures), can you give us an overview of why you think it's in any way a relevant comparator?
And that's "Died with" as they would call it for Covid. Died from is less than 2K. unident said:
QWERTYUIOP next to each other on a standard keyboard so an easy mistake to make of course that won’t matter as you think you’re 1-0 up.
Upset the your god has gone to pastures new, so have to resort to the insults?
I suppose your going to blame you're keyboard for that one too.Upset the your god has gone to pastures new, so have to resort to the insults?
unident said:
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. 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.
The difficulty with your position is that you seem to think it is OK to accuse complete strangers of having disregard for peoples lives because you either disagree with their views or more likely do not understand them.
I don't think there is any justification for that sort of behaviour.
NGee said:
unident said:
QWERTYUIOP next to each other on a standard keyboard so an easy mistake to make of course that won’t matter as you think you’re 1-0 up.
Upset the your god has gone to pastures new, so have to resort to the insults?
I suppose your going to blame you're keyboard for that one too.Upset the your god has gone to pastures new, so have to resort to the insults?
Are you going to blame yours on your keyboard or claim you were being ironic?
Mistakes happen. Small keyboards. Fat fingers.
NickCQ 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?
Given that 'flu kills 10-20k in a normal season and COVID killed something like 150k last year (despite extreme preventative measures), can you give us an overview of why you think it's in any way a relevant comparator?We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Those vulnerable people are now protected by vaccines, so that their risk is reduced tenfold. That’s the best anyone can do for them.
We are in the process of removing restrictions, which is causing some concern because doing so could result in an ‘exit wave’. I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no real choice. We either spend the rest of our lives with eternal restrictions or we continue to unlock.
The test for restriction of human rights is if the measures are ‘justified and proportionate’. Imposing permanent restrictions to avoid a theoretical risk, at a level we accept for flu deaths year on year, when all-cause deaths are lower than average, is clearly not going to meet that test.
Unident seems to believe that even voicing that opinion demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. I think that is extreme and hypocritical. If he genuinely believes that, then he should have spent the last twenty years campaigning to save the poor souls we have allowed to die each winter. He did not, because that would be irrational.
NickCQ 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?
Given that 'flu kills 10-20k in a normal season and COVID killed something like 150k last year (despite extreme preventative measures), can you give us an overview of why you think it's in any way a relevant comparator?I was just curious what work unident had done in previous years, particularly in those where a similar number had been lost to other infectious diseases. Or perhaps he had a disregard for human life until spring 2020?
Edited by markyb_lcy on Tuesday 11th May 21:04
Elysium said:
I think you are losing sight of the context now.
We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Those vulnerable people are now protected by vaccines, so that their risk is reduced tenfold. That’s the best anyone can do for them.
We are in the process of removing restrictions, which is causing some concern because doing so could result in an ‘exit wave’. I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no real choice. We either spend the rest of our lives with eternal restrictions or we continue to unlock.
The test for restriction of human rights is if the measures are ‘justified and proportionate’. Imposing permanent restrictions to avoid a theoretical risk, at a level we accept for flu deaths year on year, when all-cause deaths are lower than average, is clearly not going to meet that test.
Unident seems to believe that even voicing that opinion demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. I think that is extreme and hypocritical. If he genuinely believes that, then he should have spent the last twenty years campaigning to save the poor souls we have allowed to die each winter. He did not, because that would be irrational.
If you’re going to use me in an argument, at least make it accurate. I have no problem with unlocking. I have no problem with vaccination. I want a return to normality (as it was) as soon as possible. However, what I don’t want is a frivolous approach of throwing caution to the wind and ignoring models that suggest a lot of people could die. I want that even less when the argument for potentially sacrificing people is some ethereal concept that actually rebounds without much effort anyway. Use multiple models, balance the argument and I’m fine with it. We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Those vulnerable people are now protected by vaccines, so that their risk is reduced tenfold. That’s the best anyone can do for them.
We are in the process of removing restrictions, which is causing some concern because doing so could result in an ‘exit wave’. I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no real choice. We either spend the rest of our lives with eternal restrictions or we continue to unlock.
The test for restriction of human rights is if the measures are ‘justified and proportionate’. Imposing permanent restrictions to avoid a theoretical risk, at a level we accept for flu deaths year on year, when all-cause deaths are lower than average, is clearly not going to meet that test.
Unident seems to believe that even voicing that opinion demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. I think that is extreme and hypocritical. If he genuinely believes that, then he should have spent the last twenty years campaigning to save the poor souls we have allowed to die each winter. He did not, because that would be irrational.
To show why your numbers argument is flawed here’s an example. You argue that not many are dying now so it’s OK to unlock. If I normally spend £1000 per week , but over the last year spent £5000 per week, the fact that I’m now spending £500 per week isn’t a valid argument that I’m OK and my finances are under control. They’re not. I’ve haemorrhaged a lot of money in that past few months.
Letting people die, because you think it’s for the greater good is a god-complex. They may or may not die, but you can’t simply say “I’ll take that risk” and expect it to be viewed as acceptable. It may work out in your favour, but it’s a hell of a gamble.
unident said:
To show why your numbers argument is flawed here’s an example. You argue that not many are dying now so it’s OK to unlock. If I normally spend £1000 per week , but over the last year spent £5000 per week, the fact that I’m now spending £500 per week isn’t a valid argument that I’m OK and my finances are under control. They’re not. I’ve haemorrhaged a lot of money in that past few months.
You haven't considered whether the spend was discretionary or had to take place whether you wanted to or not.Given the lack of substantial (or even negligible, WRT some aspects) effects of any of the 'mitigation' measures, and the similarity of the death curves in countries/states with similar characteristic/latitudes, it would suggest that 'the area under the curve' is the area under the curve, and there's nothing anyone can really do about it, bar fantasist isolation policies that are only effective if you live at the arse end of the world and on the end of the line.
markyb_lcy said:
The number under scrutiny was 18k deaths (was it not you who quoted it?). The suggestion was that “accepting” those deaths without all sorts of measures and infringements on freedom, was displaying a disregard for human life.
Ah OK, I thought you were referring to all COVID restrictions rather than continuing onesElysium said:
I think you are losing sight of the context now.
We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
I think I misunderstood the post I was quoting as a complaint about all COVID restrictions, past and present, rather than a critique of the current and future trajectory of regs. It makes no sense to compare COVID pre-vaccines in 2020 to 'flu - I think we are in agreement on that?We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Graveworm said:
And that's "Died with" as they would call it for Covid. Died from is less than 2K.
in 2020? are you sure about that? excess deaths were well north of your 2k figurehttps://c.files.bbci.co.uk/6B29/production/_115533...
RSTurboPaul said:
You haven't considered whether the spend was discretionary or had to take place whether you wanted to or not.
Given the lack of substantial (or even negligible, WRT some aspects) effects of any of the 'mitigation' measures, and the similarity of the death curves in countries/states with similar characteristic/latitudes, it would suggest that 'the area under the curve' is the area under the curve, and there's nothing anyone can really do about it, bar fantasist isolation policies that are only effective if you live at the arse end of the world and on the end of the line.
Think about what you’ve just written in the context of what has happened. Given the lack of substantial (or even negligible, WRT some aspects) effects of any of the 'mitigation' measures, and the similarity of the death curves in countries/states with similar characteristic/latitudes, it would suggest that 'the area under the curve' is the area under the curve, and there's nothing anyone can really do about it, bar fantasist isolation policies that are only effective if you live at the arse end of the world and on the end of the line.
The official figures state 127,000 Covid deaths. Excess deaths were c80,000 depending on where you want to take your stats from. If excess deaths are lower than normal this year, then the fact that there was a surge last year will account for some of that. This really isn’t difficult maths. However, you can (as I’ve said before) twist it to suit your narrative.
That’s my point with the spend. Spend a shedload last year, save a nominal amount this year, it doesn’t even itself out.
NickCQ said:
markyb_lcy said:
The number under scrutiny was 18k deaths (was it not you who quoted it?). The suggestion was that “accepting” those deaths without all sorts of measures and infringements on freedom, was displaying a disregard for human life.
Ah OK, I thought you were referring to all COVID restrictions rather than continuing ones
NickCQ said:
Elysium said:
I think you are losing sight of the context now.
We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
I think I misunderstood the post I was quoting as a complaint about all COVID restrictions, past and present, rather than a critique of the current and future trajectory of regs. It makes no sense to compare COVID pre-vaccines in 2020 to 'flu - I think we are in agreement on that?We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
I find it baffling that our mitigation strategies have completely ignored the unequal impacts of this disease.
But we are talking about the current situation, where vaccines have levelled the risk more than we might ever have hoped. To the point where COVID is no longer leading to excess mortality, even with an exit wave.
At that point, there is no moral argument for restrictions to be maintained. We have done all we can and must return peoples freedoms.
unident said:
Elysium said:
I think you are losing sight of the context now.
We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Those vulnerable people are now protected by vaccines, so that their risk is reduced tenfold. That’s the best anyone can do for them.
We are in the process of removing restrictions, which is causing some concern because doing so could result in an ‘exit wave’. I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no real choice. We either spend the rest of our lives with eternal restrictions or we continue to unlock.
The test for restriction of human rights is if the measures are ‘justified and proportionate’. Imposing permanent restrictions to avoid a theoretical risk, at a level we accept for flu deaths year on year, when all-cause deaths are lower than average, is clearly not going to meet that test.
Unident seems to believe that even voicing that opinion demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. I think that is extreme and hypocritical. If he genuinely believes that, then he should have spent the last twenty years campaigning to save the poor souls we have allowed to die each winter. He did not, because that would be irrational.
If you’re going to use me in an argument, at least make it accurate. I have no problem with unlocking. I have no problem with vaccination. I want a return to normality (as it was) as soon as possible. However, what I don’t want is a frivolous approach of throwing caution to the wind and ignoring models that suggest a lot of people could die. I want that even less when the argument for potentially sacrificing people is some ethereal concept that actually rebounds without much effort anyway. Use multiple models, balance the argument and I’m fine with it. We have spent 14 months of our lives under extreme restrictions because the Govt decided that the need to protect vulnerable people from COVID outweighed everyone else’s rights.
Those vulnerable people are now protected by vaccines, so that their risk is reduced tenfold. That’s the best anyone can do for them.
We are in the process of removing restrictions, which is causing some concern because doing so could result in an ‘exit wave’. I think this is a false dichotomy. There is no real choice. We either spend the rest of our lives with eternal restrictions or we continue to unlock.
The test for restriction of human rights is if the measures are ‘justified and proportionate’. Imposing permanent restrictions to avoid a theoretical risk, at a level we accept for flu deaths year on year, when all-cause deaths are lower than average, is clearly not going to meet that test.
Unident seems to believe that even voicing that opinion demonstrates a complete disregard for human life. I think that is extreme and hypocritical. If he genuinely believes that, then he should have spent the last twenty years campaigning to save the poor souls we have allowed to die each winter. He did not, because that would be irrational.
To show why your numbers argument is flawed here’s an example. You argue that not many are dying now so it’s OK to unlock. If I normally spend £1000 per week , but over the last year spent £5000 per week, the fact that I’m now spending £500 per week isn’t a valid argument that I’m OK and my finances are under control. They’re not. I’ve haemorrhaged a lot of money in that past few months.
Letting people die, because you think it’s for the greater good is a god-complex. They may or may not die, but you can’t simply say “I’ll take that risk” and expect it to be viewed as acceptable. It may work out in your favour, but it’s a hell of a gamble.
The point I made a month ago was that if the number of people dying is now lower than normal and the vulnerable have been vaccinated, then there is no emergency. And an exit wave of 18,000 deaths is unlikely to create such an emergency.
With no emergency, there is no justification for restrictions on human rights. It’s that simple.
Your hysterical response was that this pragmatic attitude showed a complete disregard for human life. A response that you decided to repeat today when challenged by another poster.
It’s hypocritical, unnecessary and wrong. But you seem to think it’s a perfectly normal way to behave.
NickCQ said:
in 2020? are you sure about that? excess deaths were well north of your 2k figure
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/6B29/production/_115533...
I was referring to Flu most other years, in 2020 it will have been significantly lower. It's seldom the underlying cause of death, which is where it differs, significantly, from Covid. https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/6B29/production/_115533...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff