Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

“A police state is not racist police officers being brutal.”

Errrm...

There's no erm unless you've decided to redefine a police state as any state with a police force - in which case, who cares about the lockdown? We've been in a police state since the Peelers.
 
There are categories where refusing to hire someone for certain reasons would be discrimination but those have to be established by law. Refusing to take a vaccine would not make you a member of a protected category although there are religious reasons to refuse vaccines and religion is a protected category, so it's probably something that will wind up in court.

The reason that choosing not to be vaccinated can affect others is because there are some people who can't be vaccinated because they are too young or too old. If everyone could choose to be vaccinated or not and those who chose not to would also agree that they are ineligible for medical care if they contract a disease that could be prevented, then a personal choice wouldn't affect anyone else.
If enough people choose not to be vaccinated then it practically guarantees that some of them will contract the virus and spread it, and some of them will come into contact with those who are vulnerable and can't receive the vaccination.
Yeah, I understand that. I’m just hoping results that the vaccination is safe for everyone to take is true and made clear. 1. That it actually works. And 2. that there are no health threatening side effects down the road.

I guess I’m on the fence, and gonna wait it out as long as I could so I could see the outcome. Because most likely work places will make it mandatory.


It’s just an awful position to be put in when one spends a lot of their time, mind and energy taking care of their health in the first place.
 
There's no erm unless you've decided to redefine a police state as any state with a police force - in which case, who cares about the lockdown? We've been in a police state since the Peelers.
Well, in principle the latter’s true. The issue is one of when you start to notice. I noticed in the 80s, especially during the miners’ strike. More are noticing now, as it’s starting to impinge in a manner that can’t be (or is harder to) ignore.

I don’t have a romantic idea of ‘freedom’, I accept it’s an illusion. It’s more that in my vision of society, people don’t notice that they don’t have it.

I personally don’t feel particularly ‘free’ going to work. And I definitely didn’t feel free going to school. But I don’t want my nose rubbing in the inevitability of control—and the state’s perception of people as ‘subjects’.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, in principle the latter’s true. The issue is one when you start to notice. I noticed in the 80s, especially during the miners’ strike. More are noticing now, as it’s starting to impinge in a manner that can’t be (or is harder to) ignore.

I don’t have a romantic idea of ‘freedom’, I accept it’s an illusion. It’s more that in my vision of society, people don’t notice that they don’t have it.

I personally don’t feel particularly ‘free’ going to work. And I definitely didn’t feel free going to school. But I don’t want my nose rubbing in the inevitability of control—and the state’s perception of people as ‘subjects’.

The comms are rubbish - but there's sound evidence for masks, distancing, staying home... & we were already getting cancellations, actors refusing to work & it was very likely we'd become the centre of an outbreak & the public would shun us even more - there's been meetings, committees, etc.

So while I feel there's been the usual arse-ups & it's miserable, I don't feel controlled anymore than we're all limited because other people exist & want other things.
 
There's no erm unless you've decided to redefine a police state as any state with a police force - in which case, who cares about the lockdown? We've been in a police state since the Peelers.

🧐

WTF?????? 'we've been in a police state' for many many years? It was bad then but good now?????:blushing:
do you partake frozen tacos??:crazy:
 
The only difference is, I assume, you'd take it more seriously.

The point I'm making is that lockdown measures work - & that Sweden has had to impose more restrictions because leaving it as voluntary guidance wasn't enough.

In November they temporarily banned the sale of alcohol in restaurants after 20:00, and they restricted public gatherings to eight people because viruses tend to be worse in Winter. Everyone thinks this is reasonable and proportionate. Hardly a lockdown.

The new law that you keep talking about came into place on January 8th. It’s there to grant local authorities the power to fine/close shops and libraries etc in case of overcrowding, should that become necessary. No new restrictions on our civil liberties have been imposed in connection with this new law. None. You really do not know what you are talking about.
 
The comms are rubbish - but there's sound evidence for masks, distancing, staying home... & we were already getting cancellations, actors refusing to work & it was very likely we'd become the centre of an outbreak & the public would shun us even more - there's been meetings, committees, etc.

So while I feel there's been the usual arse-ups & it's miserable, I don't feel controlled anymore than we're all limited because other people exist & want other things.
Well, I accept my position only goes in the mix. I’m not about to advocate others being slapped down on the behalf of my own perspectives.

Nevertheless, there were other ways to deal with the Covid issue. I might begin by pointing out that (to the best of my knowledge) the technology for rapid 30 minute tests was available over a year ago. And I know I wasn’t the only one looking on with incredulity as planes from Italy, Spain and China flew over my head—whilst people were simultaneously trapped in their homes last Spring.

And I genuinely fear for the poorest over the next few years: they will find the current government is remarkably disinterested in their plight. The contrast, with the throwing around of cheap money now, will be startling. The best I can hope is that it will be revealing too.
 
In November they temporarily banned the sale of alcohol in restaurants after 20:00, and they restricted public gatherings to eight people because viruses tend to be worse in Winter. Everyone thinks this is reasonable and proportionate. Hardly a lockdown.

The new law that you keep talking about came into place on January 8th. It’s there to grant local authorities the power to fine/close shops and libraries etc in case of overcrowding, should that become necessary. No new restrictions on our civil liberties have been imposed in connection with this new law. None. You really do not know what you are talking about.

You don't know what you're talking about & as ever have zero evidence.

The measures that work are lockdown measures.

There's nothing else that works.

If you prefer less measures & a higher death rate with no benefit to the economy that's fine - but it's not an argument against lockdowns or for anyone to follow the Swedish model for death rate/economic reasons.
 
Well, I accept my position only goes in the mix. I’m not about to advocate others being slapped down on the behalf of my own perspectives.

Nevertheless, there were other ways to deal with the Covid issue. I might begin by pointing out that (to the best of my knowledge) the technology for rapid 30 minute tests was available over a year ago. And I know I wasn’t the only one looking on with incredulity as planes from Italy, Spain and China flew over my head—whilst people were simultaneously trapped in their homes last Spring.

And I genuinely fear for the poorest over the next few years: they will find the current government is remarkably disinterested in their plight. The contrast, with the throwing around of cheap money now, will be startling. The best I can hope is that it will be revealing too.

Closing the border & testing would have been for the best. It would be part of a lockdown though. And while lockdown was a popular policy it was so unfamiliar that politicians didn't want to do it & have been flip-flopping ever since. Even Nicola for all she likes to sound decisive has been unsure.

I'm more hopeful that campaigners are focused on poverty & will find an audience. For a while it seemed the benefit scrounger austerity narrative was unbeatable.

But, it's never great out there.
 
Closing the border & testing would have been for the best. It would be part of a lockdown though. And while lockdown was a popular policy it was so unfamiliar that politicians didn't want to do it & have been flip-flopping ever since. Even Nicola for all she likes to sound decisive has been unsure.

I'm more hopeful that campaigners are focused on poverty & will find an audience. For a while it seemed the benefit scrounger austerity narrative was unbeatable.

But, it's never great out there.
“For a while it seemed the benefit scrounger austerity narrative was unbeatable.”

It’s an evergreen. It will be back very soon. Indeed, it was in the news just yesterday.
 
Sweden takes no additional measures. Lockdown zealots: “Reckless, evil granny killers!!!”

Sweden takes additional, proportionate measures. Lockdown zealots: “We told you they’d lock down eventually!”
 
Sweden takes no additional measures. Lockdown zealots: “Reckless, evil granny killers!!!”

Sweden takes additional, proportionate measures. Lockdown zealots: “We told you they’d lock down eventually!”
We’re just jealous.
 
You don't know what you're talking about & as ever have zero evidence.

The measures that work are lockdown measures.

There's nothing else that works.

If you prefer less measures & a higher death rate with no benefit to the economy that's fine - but it's not an argument against lockdowns or for anyone to follow the Swedish model for death rate/economic reasons.


:censored:

if YOU prefer less measures and a higher death rate with NO BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY????:blushing:

:crazy:

who is "YOU"????????????????????? Fake C or the CREEP RADISH????:confused:
 
Sweden takes no additional measures. Lockdown zealots: “Reckless, evil granny killers!!!”

Sweden takes additional, proportionate measures. Lockdown zealots: “We told you they’d lock down eventually!”

Sweden's obviously banned links & evidence.
 
There is, ultimately, going to have to be a way of living with Covid. And it can’t be lockdowns.

“The man coordinating Israel’s pandemic response, Nachman Ash, has warned that a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the country has been “less effective than we thought.””
 
There is, ultimately, going to have to be a way of living with Covid. And it can’t be lockdowns.

“The man coordinating Israel’s pandemic response, Nachman Ash, has warned that a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the country has been “less effective than we thought.””

Israel's saying it takes the second dose & we're reporting it because we're currently delaying the second dose so it's relevant.

It's not that pessimistic.

 
He still has a show? I noticed he disappeared from TalkSPORT.
hes on talk radio every morning about ten o clock,i dont liste to the radio just saw his plank of the week show on youtube.
 
Back
Top Bottom