| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:00 - Oct 15 with 981 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:43 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
I could probably write an essay in answer to this question but I will spare the board and keep it short. I have pretty much alluded to what I think in my response to Stokie but in short I think the Government is using the crisis to increase their power/control and to remove certain rights and freedoms which if they have their way we won't be getting back. Lagos has countered this and I very much hope he is right.
I also think there is a huge influence from some very rich globalists who have a certain vision of the future that may not be in the best interests of the majority of humanity, although of course they will dress it up to look the exact opposite. See the World Economic Forum and their plans for 'the great reset' as one example of this. I'm sure this will be seen as taking it down the 'conspiracy' path but I think you have to be very naive to think that the ultra rich do not have a big influence in this world. [Post edited 15 Oct 2020 11:19]
|
As per my reply though, the government have been very reluctant to restrict freedoms up to the point where they have gone against SAGE evidence and not implemented restrictions and we have the leader of the opposition asking them to put on harsher restrictions.
I can't see how that tallies in any way to your theory of this being a freedom snatch. They would have increased control far more if they wanted to do that given they could have pointed to scientific advice and said it was required.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
|  |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:03 - Oct 15 with 975 views | StokieBlue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:52 - Oct 15 by Radlett_blue |
Lockdowns & track & trace are fine in theory but only work if there is very high compliance & we already have more than enough evidence that a substantial minority wouldn't comply with previous regulations so it's hard to believe that this is going to change, especially after 6 months of restrictions.
It's possible a vaccine will never be found. Stricter lockdowns won't eradicate the virus & may actually prove more damaging in terms of other health issues plus the fact we will run out of money to support essential services so we have to try to live with COVID. This should involve a degree of restriction so that the NHS isn't overwhelmed plus strong advice to the vulnerable to shield. |
Compliance can be forced though. There has been basically no effort to enforce the rules in the UK. Contrast that with Australia where it was an immediate and large fine for breaking the rules. People won't do as they are asked until it hurts them directly and we simply haven't done that.
Why do you think it's possible a vaccine won't be found? I guess it's certainly possible but any equivalence drawn to other coroanviruses is probably false given the vast effort underway to find a vaccine. The efforts to produce a vaccine are far more than has been done previously and there are currently 240+ vaccines in development and 40+ in trials.
It's hard to see how we can "learn to live with it" without condemning a decent portion of the elderly and vulnerable to either permanent house arrest or worse, a visit to the hospital given herd immunity by natural infection is far from proven in this case.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:41 - Oct 15 with 956 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:14 - Oct 13 by StokieBlue |
"We know that the majority of people who have died were a) over 85 and b) had pre-existing health conditions which were more often than not the primary cause of death. In short many of the victims were sadly already close to the end. That is not me being insensitive or 'downplaying', it is just a fact."
I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done.
Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position).
"We also know that the consequences of Government responses and lockdowns have already and will continue to be huge, suicides skyrocketing, businesses destroyed, poverty increasing etc. etc. I could ask if you do not care about these things but I'm sure you do so I won't drop to that level."
Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have.
"As for the loss of rights, if you think it is going to be just for a 'while' then I would suggest you have not read too many history books. Society is going to be nothing like it was pre-covid when this is finally over and not for the better, at least not from a civil liberties point of view.
You can rest assured Governments will not be returning any of their extra control or powers unless they are literally forced to by the people."
There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term.
Which parts of history are you specifically referring to? It just doesn't tally and looks like a simple anti-establishment position.
"Lets see where we are in a years time, two years time, and see how many rights have been returned and how many have been lost forever."
Fair enough, at present it's totally unknowable how things will look in two years, it's hard to even speculate given the number of independent variables.
SB |
"I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done"
I don't need Doctors to agree or disagree on this, what I stated was factual. I don't believe the way covid deaths have been recorded is normal. For a start we have seen glaring errors that have been admitted to and that have later seen the figures amended. We have also seen examples of how people with serious terminal illness have been recorded as a covid death even though it is not the primary cause. In the early stages they were doing this without even testing and based on the presence of symptoms which is hugely problematic as the symptoms of Covid are very similar to all the other respiratory infections. The fact that all of the 'died with' deaths are included in the total figure is very misleading and doesn't allow for any context in regards to how sick the person was with other conditions. This figure is still the one that generates the headlines and which people are using. The sad reality is a lot of these people would have died anyway within days or weeks.
"Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position)."
If we are talking about protecting the tiny minority then why was there widespread DNR orders placed against elderly patients in care homes and hospitals in the early stages of the pandemic? This completely contradicts the narrative put out by the Government that it is all about 'saving lives'. I am all for saving lives wherever possible but not when policies that are portrayed as protecting the tiny minority are to the detriment of everybody else.
My stance on vaccines is not quite as you describe. In short I believe it is not just a tiny minority who are adversely affected. I believe the risks are downplayed and underreported and the benefits are overplayed. I have seen first hand how the medical profession dismisses adverse reactions as 'coincidence' and how there is little if anything by way of investigation to actually substantiate the claim either way. We have a yellow card reporting system in this country but few are aware of it and it is really not fit for purpose. The vaers reporting system in the US is better but also far from perfect but it has been estimated that only 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported. I also do not like the way that that vaccination is being driven by greed and profit and is slowly becoming less of a choice and more of a mandate in large parts of the so-called free world ( No jab, No pay in Australia for example). I am not so much anti-vaccine as pro safe vaccines and pro health freedom and informed consent. I appreciate in this country that we do still have this, for now, but it does not take a genius to work out the direction it is going.
"Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have".
I Disagree. The modelling has been shown to be out by orders of magnitude during this pandemic. In the real world however it has been demonstrated that in places where strict Lockdowns have not been enforced the predicted armageddon has not occurred. Sweden is the obvious example, they recorded fewer deaths per head than the UK earlier in the year and right now they are still doing fine. No lockdowns, no heavy restrictions, no masks etc. and on Tuesday this week they recorded 1 Covid death. You can also see with certain States in the US that have not locked down against those that have that the numbers do not differ greatly, South Dakota being one example. It surely has to be better to keep a society as open as possible unless there is irrefutable evidence that doing so will cause a huge number of deaths. There never was any evidence for this and still isn't.
"There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term".
You are just using just one example here when there are so many examples to the contrary. If you look at the bigger picture it simply doesn't stack up in my opinion. Only yesterday we have seen absurd orders to shut down all Gyms in Liverpool even though it is completely at odds with all of the evidence. This Government is literally thriving on its newly gained power and the longer this goes on the less willing they will be to give this power up. They are already drawing up plans for 'digital health passports' and 'vaccine certificates' in future where you will have to either prove you have had the vaccine or present a negative covid test to gain access to venues, services, travel to other countries etc. This will be a huge infringement on civil liberties and again totally disproportionate to the threat the disease actually poses.
Boris claimed recently that they were a 'freedom loving Tory party' that hates imposing these restrictions on people, most of the evidence suggests the exact opposite to be true and that he is lying as usual. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this one of course, but I really don't see it. |  | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 11:05 - Oct 15 with 943 views | hype313 |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:41 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
"I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done"
I don't need Doctors to agree or disagree on this, what I stated was factual. I don't believe the way covid deaths have been recorded is normal. For a start we have seen glaring errors that have been admitted to and that have later seen the figures amended. We have also seen examples of how people with serious terminal illness have been recorded as a covid death even though it is not the primary cause. In the early stages they were doing this without even testing and based on the presence of symptoms which is hugely problematic as the symptoms of Covid are very similar to all the other respiratory infections. The fact that all of the 'died with' deaths are included in the total figure is very misleading and doesn't allow for any context in regards to how sick the person was with other conditions. This figure is still the one that generates the headlines and which people are using. The sad reality is a lot of these people would have died anyway within days or weeks.
"Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position)."
If we are talking about protecting the tiny minority then why was there widespread DNR orders placed against elderly patients in care homes and hospitals in the early stages of the pandemic? This completely contradicts the narrative put out by the Government that it is all about 'saving lives'. I am all for saving lives wherever possible but not when policies that are portrayed as protecting the tiny minority are to the detriment of everybody else.
My stance on vaccines is not quite as you describe. In short I believe it is not just a tiny minority who are adversely affected. I believe the risks are downplayed and underreported and the benefits are overplayed. I have seen first hand how the medical profession dismisses adverse reactions as 'coincidence' and how there is little if anything by way of investigation to actually substantiate the claim either way. We have a yellow card reporting system in this country but few are aware of it and it is really not fit for purpose. The vaers reporting system in the US is better but also far from perfect but it has been estimated that only 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported. I also do not like the way that that vaccination is being driven by greed and profit and is slowly becoming less of a choice and more of a mandate in large parts of the so-called free world ( No jab, No pay in Australia for example). I am not so much anti-vaccine as pro safe vaccines and pro health freedom and informed consent. I appreciate in this country that we do still have this, for now, but it does not take a genius to work out the direction it is going.
"Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have".
I Disagree. The modelling has been shown to be out by orders of magnitude during this pandemic. In the real world however it has been demonstrated that in places where strict Lockdowns have not been enforced the predicted armageddon has not occurred. Sweden is the obvious example, they recorded fewer deaths per head than the UK earlier in the year and right now they are still doing fine. No lockdowns, no heavy restrictions, no masks etc. and on Tuesday this week they recorded 1 Covid death. You can also see with certain States in the US that have not locked down against those that have that the numbers do not differ greatly, South Dakota being one example. It surely has to be better to keep a society as open as possible unless there is irrefutable evidence that doing so will cause a huge number of deaths. There never was any evidence for this and still isn't.
"There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term".
You are just using just one example here when there are so many examples to the contrary. If you look at the bigger picture it simply doesn't stack up in my opinion. Only yesterday we have seen absurd orders to shut down all Gyms in Liverpool even though it is completely at odds with all of the evidence. This Government is literally thriving on its newly gained power and the longer this goes on the less willing they will be to give this power up. They are already drawing up plans for 'digital health passports' and 'vaccine certificates' in future where you will have to either prove you have had the vaccine or present a negative covid test to gain access to venues, services, travel to other countries etc. This will be a huge infringement on civil liberties and again totally disproportionate to the threat the disease actually poses.
Boris claimed recently that they were a 'freedom loving Tory party' that hates imposing these restrictions on people, most of the evidence suggests the exact opposite to be true and that he is lying as usual. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this one of course, but I really don't see it. |
On your Doctors point, my Mother In Law's Sister died two weeks ago from a Heart Attack, all very sudden and very sad, but they have been having battles with the hospital as they insist on putting Covid down as cause of death, but she didn't test positive for it. They can't understand why they are doing this, it's all very odd. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 11:25 - Oct 15 with 912 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 11:05 - Oct 15 by hype313 |
On your Doctors point, my Mother In Law's Sister died two weeks ago from a Heart Attack, all very sudden and very sad, but they have been having battles with the hospital as they insist on putting Covid down as cause of death, but she didn't test positive for it. They can't understand why they are doing this, it's all very odd. |
Not surprised. I have heard/read the same thing literally hundreds of times since the beginning of this, they could all be making it up of course but It's very unlikely and would be a very strange thing for lots of people to invent simultaneously. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:01 - Oct 15 with 897 views | hype313 |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 11:25 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
Not surprised. I have heard/read the same thing literally hundreds of times since the beginning of this, they could all be making it up of course but It's very unlikely and would be a very strange thing for lots of people to invent simultaneously. |
I just don't understand why they would do this, and also be so militant about why Covid should be put down, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but it has left them feeling worse than they already do. | |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:53 - Oct 15 with 882 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:01 - Oct 15 by hype313 |
I just don't understand why they would do this, and also be so militant about why Covid should be put down, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but it has left them feeling worse than they already do. |
Well people won't like to hear this but the only logical conclusion you can come to is that there is an agenda to boost the numbers. It is simply dishonest to report a heart attack death as covid even if there was a positive test. Anybody who has looked into the PCR test even a little bit will know that there are big question marks about its use as a diagnostic tool. It appears that in terms of both 'cases' and 'deaths' what is being reported simply cannot be relied upon to be accurate. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:18 - Oct 15 with 869 views | m14_blue |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 12:53 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
Well people won't like to hear this but the only logical conclusion you can come to is that there is an agenda to boost the numbers. It is simply dishonest to report a heart attack death as covid even if there was a positive test. Anybody who has looked into the PCR test even a little bit will know that there are big question marks about its use as a diagnostic tool. It appears that in terms of both 'cases' and 'deaths' what is being reported simply cannot be relied upon to be accurate. |
But why would a hospital be involved in that agenda?
Surely they can't be part of the Government agenda to seize power?
I am struggling to explain it though. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:29 - Oct 15 with 855 views | giant_stow |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:18 - Oct 15 by m14_blue |
But why would a hospital be involved in that agenda?
Surely they can't be part of the Government agenda to seize power?
I am struggling to explain it though. |
Maybe there's some admin appeal to categorising deaths like that? Time saver for the hospital maybe? total guess. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:46 - Oct 15 with 844 views | J2BLUE |
I really despise the public sometimes. A gym owner in Liverpool posted on Instagram he wouldn't close his gym. The police visited him and warned him. He still refused to close. They gave him a £1000 fine. We're in the middle of a pandemic. So what do people do? Donate £31,000 via Go Fund Me to the gym.
Senseless. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 14:25 - Oct 15 with 821 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 13:18 - Oct 15 by m14_blue |
But why would a hospital be involved in that agenda?
Surely they can't be part of the Government agenda to seize power?
I am struggling to explain it though. |
I guess it's just people following orders rather than anybody being actively involved in any agenda. If you are told this is how deaths are to be reported and that is Government advise who is realistically going to question it in terms of a formal confrontation. It has also been made very clear to NHS staff that they are not to speak to the press or publish anything related to Covid on social media or they will face disciplinary action up to and including losing their jobs. I know this for a fact but in fairness I think this would have been the case pre-covid as well. | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:03 - Oct 15 with 769 views | 26_Paz |
My area has just been put into a tier 2. Just been for a haircut, speaking to my barber, recent times have been dreadful for him. Saturday was his worst Saturday in 28 years. This will only make things worse. The economic pain is just too much! |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:29 - Oct 15 with 742 views | Bluesquid |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:41 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
"I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done"
I don't need Doctors to agree or disagree on this, what I stated was factual. I don't believe the way covid deaths have been recorded is normal. For a start we have seen glaring errors that have been admitted to and that have later seen the figures amended. We have also seen examples of how people with serious terminal illness have been recorded as a covid death even though it is not the primary cause. In the early stages they were doing this without even testing and based on the presence of symptoms which is hugely problematic as the symptoms of Covid are very similar to all the other respiratory infections. The fact that all of the 'died with' deaths are included in the total figure is very misleading and doesn't allow for any context in regards to how sick the person was with other conditions. This figure is still the one that generates the headlines and which people are using. The sad reality is a lot of these people would have died anyway within days or weeks.
"Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position)."
If we are talking about protecting the tiny minority then why was there widespread DNR orders placed against elderly patients in care homes and hospitals in the early stages of the pandemic? This completely contradicts the narrative put out by the Government that it is all about 'saving lives'. I am all for saving lives wherever possible but not when policies that are portrayed as protecting the tiny minority are to the detriment of everybody else.
My stance on vaccines is not quite as you describe. In short I believe it is not just a tiny minority who are adversely affected. I believe the risks are downplayed and underreported and the benefits are overplayed. I have seen first hand how the medical profession dismisses adverse reactions as 'coincidence' and how there is little if anything by way of investigation to actually substantiate the claim either way. We have a yellow card reporting system in this country but few are aware of it and it is really not fit for purpose. The vaers reporting system in the US is better but also far from perfect but it has been estimated that only 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported. I also do not like the way that that vaccination is being driven by greed and profit and is slowly becoming less of a choice and more of a mandate in large parts of the so-called free world ( No jab, No pay in Australia for example). I am not so much anti-vaccine as pro safe vaccines and pro health freedom and informed consent. I appreciate in this country that we do still have this, for now, but it does not take a genius to work out the direction it is going.
"Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have".
I Disagree. The modelling has been shown to be out by orders of magnitude during this pandemic. In the real world however it has been demonstrated that in places where strict Lockdowns have not been enforced the predicted armageddon has not occurred. Sweden is the obvious example, they recorded fewer deaths per head than the UK earlier in the year and right now they are still doing fine. No lockdowns, no heavy restrictions, no masks etc. and on Tuesday this week they recorded 1 Covid death. You can also see with certain States in the US that have not locked down against those that have that the numbers do not differ greatly, South Dakota being one example. It surely has to be better to keep a society as open as possible unless there is irrefutable evidence that doing so will cause a huge number of deaths. There never was any evidence for this and still isn't.
"There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term".
You are just using just one example here when there are so many examples to the contrary. If you look at the bigger picture it simply doesn't stack up in my opinion. Only yesterday we have seen absurd orders to shut down all Gyms in Liverpool even though it is completely at odds with all of the evidence. This Government is literally thriving on its newly gained power and the longer this goes on the less willing they will be to give this power up. They are already drawing up plans for 'digital health passports' and 'vaccine certificates' in future where you will have to either prove you have had the vaccine or present a negative covid test to gain access to venues, services, travel to other countries etc. This will be a huge infringement on civil liberties and again totally disproportionate to the threat the disease actually poses.
Boris claimed recently that they were a 'freedom loving Tory party' that hates imposing these restrictions on people, most of the evidence suggests the exact opposite to be true and that he is lying as usual. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this one of course, but I really don't see it. |
Sadly it wasn't just the elderly that had unlawful DNR's placed on them.
Patients with learning disabilities also had unlawful DNR's applied.
"A learning disability care provider said it has received an “unprecedented” number of do not resuscitate forms from doctors that it believes to be illegal."
"One man, discharged from hospital after being misdiagnosed with COVID-19, was given a DNR form because of his “blindness and severe learning disabilities”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-do-not-resuscitate-dnr-lea | | | |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 18:53 - Oct 15 with 730 views | Plums |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 09:29 - Oct 12 by Pinewoodblue |
Most people are intelligent enough not to use the relapses of others as an excuse to do things they know they shouldn’t. |
This is true but being lectured by the likes of Jenrick doesn’t give the message the gravitas it needs. Boris is proven to have lied about many things; why give him the benefit of the doubt here? The messenger is as important as the message but they’re a busted flush. |  |
| |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 06:55 - Oct 16 with 637 views | gordon |
| Legal challenges to C19 lockdowns on 10:41 - Oct 15 by Harry_Palmer |
"I'm not sure that many doctors agree with you on this point. Yes they died of their underlying conditions but they were hastened by C19 which is why it is listed as the cause of the death. I listened to a podcast on how deaths are recorded and what is being done is the same as what is usually done"
I don't need Doctors to agree or disagree on this, what I stated was factual. I don't believe the way covid deaths have been recorded is normal. For a start we have seen glaring errors that have been admitted to and that have later seen the figures amended. We have also seen examples of how people with serious terminal illness have been recorded as a covid death even though it is not the primary cause. In the early stages they were doing this without even testing and based on the presence of symptoms which is hugely problematic as the symptoms of Covid are very similar to all the other respiratory infections. The fact that all of the 'died with' deaths are included in the total figure is very misleading and doesn't allow for any context in regards to how sick the person was with other conditions. This figure is still the one that generates the headlines and which people are using. The sad reality is a lot of these people would have died anyway within days or weeks.
"Whilst they may be close to the end it's still a minority which needs protecting. Your stance on this seems to be counter to your stance on vaccines where you are concerned about the tiny minority who may have a reaction and not the wellbeing of the majority (correct me if I have misunderstood your position)."
If we are talking about protecting the tiny minority then why was there widespread DNR orders placed against elderly patients in care homes and hospitals in the early stages of the pandemic? This completely contradicts the narrative put out by the Government that it is all about 'saving lives'. I am all for saving lives wherever possible but not when policies that are portrayed as protecting the tiny minority are to the detriment of everybody else.
My stance on vaccines is not quite as you describe. In short I believe it is not just a tiny minority who are adversely affected. I believe the risks are downplayed and underreported and the benefits are overplayed. I have seen first hand how the medical profession dismisses adverse reactions as 'coincidence' and how there is little if anything by way of investigation to actually substantiate the claim either way. We have a yellow card reporting system in this country but few are aware of it and it is really not fit for purpose. The vaers reporting system in the US is better but also far from perfect but it has been estimated that only 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported. I also do not like the way that that vaccination is being driven by greed and profit and is slowly becoming less of a choice and more of a mandate in large parts of the so-called free world ( No jab, No pay in Australia for example). I am not so much anti-vaccine as pro safe vaccines and pro health freedom and informed consent. I appreciate in this country that we do still have this, for now, but it does not take a genius to work out the direction it is going.
"Clearly I care about these things but as previously discussed, the modelling without lockdowns looks far, far worse than what we currently have. Given this it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils unless you are willing to accept deaths x5 or x10 what we currently have".
I Disagree. The modelling has been shown to be out by orders of magnitude during this pandemic. In the real world however it has been demonstrated that in places where strict Lockdowns have not been enforced the predicted armageddon has not occurred. Sweden is the obvious example, they recorded fewer deaths per head than the UK earlier in the year and right now they are still doing fine. No lockdowns, no heavy restrictions, no masks etc. and on Tuesday this week they recorded 1 Covid death. You can also see with certain States in the US that have not locked down against those that have that the numbers do not differ greatly, South Dakota being one example. It surely has to be better to keep a society as open as possible unless there is irrefutable evidence that doing so will cause a huge number of deaths. There never was any evidence for this and still isn't.
"There is no evidence to support this position at the moment, in fact there is evidence to support the opposite position that the government are trying their hardest not to take away civil liberties. They were advised by SAGE to lock down a month ago (see Herbie's thread) but they didn't and kept people "free". If they were trying to seize rights forever why wouldn't they lock down aggressively when the scientists are requesting it?
It's also not the first time restrictions have been used. They were used in the Spanish Flu and things went back to normal afterwards to that doesn't support your position of losing rights for the long term".
You are just using just one example here when there are so many examples to the contrary. If you look at the bigger picture it simply doesn't stack up in my opinion. Only yesterday we have seen absurd orders to shut down all Gyms in Liverpool even though it is completely at odds with all of the evidence. This Government is literally thriving on its newly gained power and the longer this goes on the less willing they will be to give this power up. They are already drawing up plans for 'digital health passports' and 'vaccine certificates' in future where you will have to either prove you have had the vaccine or present a negative covid test to gain access to venues, services, travel to other countries etc. This will be a huge infringement on civil liberties and again totally disproportionate to the threat the disease actually poses.
Boris claimed recently that they were a 'freedom loving Tory party' that hates imposing these restrictions on people, most of the evidence suggests the exact opposite to be true and that he is lying as usual. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this one of course, but I really don't see it. |
The conspiracy could be unravelling:
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
