|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 27, 2021 9:20:48 GMT
The original offering to the British public: 'Lockdown' must be imposed because the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed.'
When the NHS wasn't overwhelmed, and was at no risk of being overwhelmed, new justifications were invented. This isn't an exhaustive list nor put into chronological order, please accept my apologies if I've missed something:
'Lockdown' must continue because:
a/ people are still being infected with the virus. Forget that all the high risk groups have been injected and that over 99% of those infected survive the experience. The 99% includes those at highest risk.
b/ New 'variants' may emerge which may put at risk those who have been injected. Lot's of 'mays' there.
c/ Some people are suffering from 'long covid'. 'Some'. The public haven't been told how many people get 'long covid'. Perhaps because if they were told, they wouldn't consider the scale of the issue serious enough to justify 60 odd million people to suffer micromanagement of their lives by government.
I wonder what d/ will be, when a to c have been exhausted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 9:30:09 GMT
Criticised heavily for the deaths and acting too late, what exactly did you expect any response going forward to be ?
At some point I hope we will, as individuals, be allowed to manage our own risks but it's not that surprising that ultra caution is the watchword.
As always it's far easier to be negative and critical than be positive, constructive and creative.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 27, 2021 9:49:35 GMT
The original offering to the British public: 'Lockdown' must be imposed because the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed.' When the NHS wasn't overwhelmed, and was at no risk of being overwhelmed, new justifications were invented. This isn't an exhaustive list nor put into chronological order, please accept my apologies if I've missed something: (1)'Lockdown' must continue because: a/ people are still being infected with the virus. Forget that all the high risk groups have been injected and that over 99% of those infected survive the experience. The 99% includes those at highest risk. b/ New 'variants' may emerge which may put at risk those who have been injected. Lot's of 'mays' there. c/ Some people are suffering from 'long covid'. 'Some'. The public haven't been told how many people get 'long covid'. Perhaps because if they were told, they wouldn't consider the scale of the issue serious enough to justify 60 odd million people to suffer micromanagement of their lives by government. I wonder what d/ will be, when a to c have been exhausted? (1) It wasn't overwhelmed although stretched very thin, probably because there was a lockdown ...... if there had been no lockdown and the NHS had been overwhelmed and we had seen some of the horrifying sights that came in from other places ..... undoubtably you would have been shouting "why did we not have a lockdown like everyone else?"
New variants will emerge ..... there is no "may" about it ..... as long as there is a sizeable number of people in the world still infected by Covid it is pretty certain
"Long Covid" has only just been recognised and there is no way that the number of people who are suffering from it can be known yet but you are blaming the government for not publishing figures that are as yet unknown?
So you think they should just pluck a figure out of the air? If they did so, it seems to me that you would be one of the first to be shouting about them publishing "false and misleading figures" if they turned out to be incorrect.
Criticise by all means .... but do add a bit of common sense into the act
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 27, 2021 11:06:21 GMT
The original offering to the British public: 'Lockdown' must be imposed because the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed.' When the NHS wasn't overwhelmed, and was at no risk of being overwhelmed, new justifications were invented. This isn't an exhaustive list nor put into chronological order, please accept my apologies if I've missed something: (1)'Lockdown' must continue because: a/ people are still being infected with the virus. Forget that all the high risk groups have been injected and that over 99% of those infected survive the experience. The 99% includes those at highest risk. b/ New 'variants' may emerge which may put at risk those who have been injected. Lot's of 'mays' there. c/ Some people are suffering from 'long covid'. 'Some'. The public haven't been told how many people get 'long covid'. Perhaps because if they were told, they wouldn't consider the scale of the issue serious enough to justify 60 odd million people to suffer micromanagement of their lives by government. I wonder what d/ will be, when a to c have been exhausted? (1) It wasn't overwhelmed although stretched very thin, probably because there was a lockdown ...... if there had been no lockdown and the NHS had been overwhelmed and we had seen some of the horrifying sights that came in from other places ..... undoubtably you would have been shouting "why did we not have a lockdown like everyone else?"
New variants will emerge ..... there is no "may" about it ..... as long as there is a sizeable number of people in the world still infected by Covid it is pretty certain
"Long Covid" has only just been recognised and there is no way that the number of people who are suffering from it can be known yet but you are blaming the government for not publishing figures that are as yet unknown?
So you think they should just pluck a figure out of the air? If they did so, it seems to me that you would be one of the first to be shouting about them publishing "false and misleading figures" if they turned out to be incorrect.
Criticise by all means .... but do add a bit of common sense into the act
whatever decisons are made there will always be those who say they are wrong...
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 27, 2021 11:44:04 GMT
The original offering to the British public: 'Lockdown' must be imposed because the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed.' When the NHS wasn't overwhelmed, and was at no risk of being overwhelmed, new justifications were invented. This isn't an exhaustive list nor put into chronological order, please accept my apologies if I've missed something: (1)'Lockdown' must continue because: a/ people are still being infected with the virus. Forget that all the high risk groups have been injected and that over 99% of those infected survive the experience. The 99% includes those at highest risk. b/ New 'variants' may emerge which may put at risk those who have been injected. Lot's of 'mays' there. c/ Some people are suffering from 'long covid'. 'Some'. The public haven't been told how many people get 'long covid'. Perhaps because if they were told, they wouldn't consider the scale of the issue serious enough to justify 60 odd million people to suffer micromanagement of their lives by government. I wonder what d/ will be, when a to c have been exhausted? (1) It wasn't overwhelmed although stretched very thin, probably because there was a lockdown ...... if there had been no lockdown and the NHS had been overwhelmed and we had seen some of the horrifying sights that came in from other places ..... undoubtably you would have been shouting "why did we not have a lockdown like everyone else?"
New variants will emerge ..... there is no "may" about it ..... as long as there is a sizeable number of people in the world still infected by Covid it is pretty certain
"Long Covid" has only just been recognised and there is no way that the number of people who are suffering from it can be known yet but you are blaming the government for not publishing figures that are as yet unknown?
So you think they should just pluck a figure out of the air? If they did so, it seems to me that you would be one of the first to be shouting about them publishing "false and misleading figures" if they turned out to be incorrect.
Criticise by all means .... but do add a bit of common sense into the act
Sure, the NHS may well have been overwhelmed, had 'lockdown' not been ordered. My point is: If this was a new disease...people were told it was highly infectious but less than 1% who caught it died of it. Those most at risk, who make up a large proportion of the 1% who die have been injected, apparently with something that's highly effective in preventing death. An unknown number of people suffer longer term from catching the disease, but do not die. The virus will mutate. Just like flu does, and all other viruses. If the p.m. announced the above to the population and said the solution was 'lockdown', the population would not comply. It would be completely out of the question, the suggestion of a madman. But, non-thinkers have been 'softened up' over the past year, not least by endless propaganda supporting 'lockdowns', always led by people who personally stood to lose nothing through 'lockdowns'. Nothing tangible at least, such as their salary, their job, their home. And so, the mission creep will go on, noisy non-thinkers aiding government in their odious plan.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 27, 2021 13:13:13 GMT
(1) It wasn't overwhelmed although stretched very thin, probably because there was a lockdown ...... if there had been no lockdown and the NHS had been overwhelmed and we had seen some of the horrifying sights that came in from other places ..... undoubtably you would have been shouting "why did we not have a lockdown like everyone else?"
New variants will emerge ..... there is no "may" about it ..... as long as there is a sizeable number of people in the world still infected by Covid it is pretty certain
"Long Covid" has only just been recognised and there is no way that the number of people who are suffering from it can be known yet but you are blaming the government for not publishing figures that are as yet unknown?
So you think they should just pluck a figure out of the air? If they did so, it seems to me that you would be one of the first to be shouting about them publishing "false and misleading figures" if they turned out to be incorrect.
Criticise by all means .... but do add a bit of common sense into the act
Sure, the NHS may well have been overwhelmed, had 'lockdown' not been ordered. My point is: If this was a new disease...people were told it was highly infectious but less than 1% who caught it died of it. Those most at risk, who make up a large proportion of the 1% who die have been injected, apparently with something that's highly effective in preventing death. An unknown number of people suffer longer term from catching the disease, but do not die. The virus will mutate. Just like flu does, and all other viruses. If the p.m. announced the above to the population and said the solution was 'lockdown', the population would not comply. It would be completely out of the question, the suggestion of a madman. But, non-thinkers have been 'softened up' over the past year, not least by endless propaganda supporting 'lockdowns', always led by people who personally stood to lose nothing through 'lockdowns'. Nothing tangible at least, such as their salary, their job, their home. And so, the mission creep will go on, noisy non-thinkers aiding government in their odious plan. It's a new disease ..... it's relatives are SARS and MERS both Covid viruses which have up to 35% fatality rate. As it happens purely fortuitously Covid 19 is much less deadly. again how could that have been known.
Also the percentage of fatalities that you quote was not the morbidity rate at the start. Now there are several very effective treatments available that have been proven to be effective in reducing the serious effects of the illness and just as importantly some of the ones that were being promoted early on by some sources (Trump for one) have been proven to be ineffective (and most of this has been done by the NHS in the UK)
The other problem about easing controls too quickly is that the more people who have the disease, even if they have only mild or even no symptoms the higher the chances of a mutation taking place. The next variant could well have a higher morbidity or attack more severely a different age group ........ remember the influenza epidemic of the early 20th century attacked mostly the young and fit ..... not the old and weak as other variants of influenza tend to do.
They are being cautious, that might rankle with you, but I for one would rather that attitude than Bolsonaro's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 13:23:31 GMT
In my experience from my circle of family, friends, neighbours and acquaintances, most have pretty much stuck to the restrictions over the last year (even when they have considered them to be somewhat over the top) not because of enforcement or brain washing or being none thinkers or sheeple ... but because they have considered it right and sought to protect their families etc.
When the time comes that these same people begin to feel the restrictions are disproportionate or no longer necessary, due to the vaccine roll-out, or hospital occupancy levels etc. I believe the restrictions will be ignored and flouted.
But in truth that's unlikely to happen as the staged removal of restrictions is already underway.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 13:31:02 GMT
At some point I hope we will, as individuals, be allowed to manage our own risks but it's not that surprising that ultra caution is the watchword. we kept our freedoms over the centuries because our obedience could only be secured by reasoned argument from our rulers, not by an enforced rulebook. Would it be better if you stopped copy&pasting and actually said something of your own for a change? I doubt it. It is moronic drivel like this that constantly highlights just what an ass you are.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 27, 2021 14:00:18 GMT
Lockdown lifting would be assisted if all adult potential assymptomatic carriers got vaccinated to prevent the spread and potential variants arising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 14:13:49 GMT
Lockdown lifting would be assisted if all adult potential assymptomatic carriers got vaccinated to prevent the spread and potential variants arising. But the more who refuse to have it further increases the possibility that a third wave will hit the country hard thus providing those who say its a conspiracy with more ammunition. How happy they will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 14:55:43 GMT
Godwin's law ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 14:59:24 GMT
"a good year to bury bad news" as someone once said.
With the news being full of Covid for the last year one does wonder what has been going on in the background, unnoticed by the hoardes.
What was all that shit in Bristol about? A law taking away the right to protest? Surely not. Can't be that simple.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 27, 2021 19:19:04 GMT
i've been reading quite a lot today on other countries responses and I find Brazils attitude..or that of the President horrifying We will never defeat this virus whilst people deny its impact there are none so blind as those who cannot see
i just cannot understand why people deny what is happening
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 27, 2021 20:36:43 GMT
I found this excellent program about the whole vaccine mess on Al Jazeera ...... it's what seems to be a good ballanced and clear programme it's a bit on the long side at 26 minutes ..... but I urge you all to at least watch the last couple of minutes from 24.05 ..... you won't be disappointed
sorry here it is on you tube
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 20:52:22 GMT
|
|