Yer panties I think you call them
1 Like
1 Like
I supped pints with Ronan in NCW one night years ago. Was some man to put them away. Think he is/ was a big FF man?
Carry on with the graceless concessions. No skin off my prose.
All this phantom whiskey has oddly little effect on spelling, syntax, punctuation. Funny, that. I must be buying all this phantom whiskey in off licenses that are into watering down their bottles. Silly me.
You have provided a large percentage of the most unacceptable comments on this pandemic. Enough said. This whole terrible process has at least been clarificatory about what lies beneath with quite a lot of people.
No one from the OIUTF brigade, least of all you, has been able to answer the core ethical/philosophical/political/medical crux: why should the state allow someone to take risk for others upon themself? What would be the justification for this scenario?
The silence would deafen an owl. I can sit at home and drink alcohol, putting myself at risk in various ways. Fair enough. I possess this freedom. But I cannot legally walk outside, full as a tick, and get into a vehicle and drive it – because I am now a risk to others as well as to myself. I do not have that freedom. This stricture is not, for any right thinking person, an infringement of liberty.
The principle is straightforward in its evident fairness; the principle’s ramifications, immensely complex. Equally, the state has the same duty of care, in principle, to all of its citizens. To move away from this principle would do grave and lasting damage to a state’s social cohesion.
The OIUTF brigade can only remain silent about what right they have to dish out risk to others. There is no plausible right to do so. As prompts, we merely see arrogance and conceit and heedlessness – and a childishness. I think exceptionally little of people who slaver after simple answers to torturously complex problems.
There can be no ‘getting on with it’ or ‘letting it rip’ or ‘herd immunity’ or platitudes about the Great Barrington Declaration without people willing to accept risk passing on the virus to people unwilling to accept such risk. There is no way around this recognition, for anyone even moderately perceptive, no way around this conundrum. And its presence is why I accept, although I find restrictions and lockdown really difficult, the sad and maybe tragic necessity of these measures. I can accept certain risks, yes, but I do not have the right to pass on risk to other (unwilling and unknowing) citizens. This moral drives current government policy. Whatever the government’s partial failures and ineptitude in regards, I believe the policy’s thrust is not just correct but vital.
2 Likes
ah here… @KinvarasPassion…me and you must have had this for years
i wasnt aware about the mental health and so called “long covid” connection yesterday until i read it here , it was just at the same time i was having my weetabix and the pictures of Hoolahan saying we had to head to barleycove for a week in July.
Its one huge WUM at this stage
3 Likes
Would you say everyone’s risk is the same? Is the risk of the teacher or politician the same as the risk of the small business owner who has worked 7 days a week, invested everything and met all creditors and employees squarely?
Would you say the middle class experience of lockdown is much different from the working class experience?
3 Likes
I am talking about ‘risk’ as regards the lights of political philosophy. This whole process is underpinned by certain (political) concepts drawn from certain (philosophical) positions. The OIUTF stuff is essentially drawn from a splice of libertarianism (the state must be minimized, on principle) and utilitarianism (economic considerations must override consideration of the vulnerable). The lockdown imperative is essentially drawn from John Rawls’ social contractualism. These terms might sound abstract but they actually have been highly agent over the last ten months or so in the various debates.
Core question: why do you feel you have the right to take on risk for me? This query is what the core issue looks like, shorn of posturing. Where is your right to do so?
Of course there are different kinds of risk. Medical risk varies, depending on someone’s standing and age. Economic risk varies, depending on an individual’s occupation. But these kinds of risk are subservient to the overall principle of ‘risk’.
Absolute gibberish.
10 Likes
I know of a very tragic story that happened last September. Woman did away with herself, in the middle of fighting an illness and couldn’t face it as the chances were slim. Awful tough on the family.
Her family had to wait 6 days to bury her because she had to be tested for Covid-19 and there was nobody available to do it over the weekend. An absolute fucking disgrace.
3 Likes
This is all based on the assumption that theres only a binary choice between lockdown or no lockdown. Even then it’s based on the assumption that lockdowns work…an assumption that only stands up so long as you blind yourself to the places that haven’t locked down. Nevermind the possibility that there may be other implications…
Would you be jolly about lockdowns if it meant losing your house?
4 Likes
Absolute ignorance and crassness.
Now bowl on, tumbleweed.
1 Like
You see, where does the word ‘jolly’ come into what I said?
The only (cold) jollity I saw in recent posts is that yob in the street you posted from Twitter. What relevance is he to anything significant? He was a yob before early 2020, he is still a yob and he will be a yob in 2022 – if he survives.
You do not want to answer the key question, do you?
There are times when, quite frankly, lockdown or no lockdown is exactly a binary choice. Case in point: just before Christmas in the 26 Counties. Anyone who believes we would be better off now if we had not locked down, hard, on Christmas Eve occupies complete cloud cuckoo land.
Ah well, there are different interpretations of the word. But anyone putting it up to tory scum is worthy of a mention at least.
As for your question. I have every right to go about my business. You have every right to stay indoors. I can’t afford the luxury our politicians have of ignoring demographics, difficult choices, evidence from other countries, ivermectin, vitamin d, lying about cause of death, absurd testing, financial vandalism, and on and on.
I don’t have the luxury of a salary coming in regardless of whether I work or not.
Well, I am not in the public sector and work is certainly affected. But no matter. I do not think anyone’s personal position, let alone my one, is an argument. So I am not going to get into anyone’s personal position, which would be pointless.
You are being disingenuous. First off, many people would not resume ‘normal’ life while this virus is circulating so powerfully in the public sphere. An end to lockdown, in and of itself, would far from wave a magic wand in economic terms. You might be understandably frustrated, and I sympathize, genuinely, but frustration is not a solvent for reality. The virus – and infection rates, specifically – is the fundamental problem, not the lockdown. You are confusing symptom with cause. The virus is what needs to be controlled – and options are greatly limited for the moment.
Second, you are not advocating one person’s free movement, right now. No, you are advocating everyone’s free movement, right now. This advocacy would have the inevitable consequence of allocating risk to people who do not want to accept risk.
At least be honest about what you are advocating. You support what is known, for shorthand, as ‘herd immunity’. This concept necessarily involves overwhelmed hospitals and needless deaths (and not just needless deaths from this virus). There is no point, whether out of frustration or anything else, in pretending otherwise. You appear to think this price would be acceptable for the chimera that is ‘herd immunity’. I most certainly do not – in all terms, including medium and long term social cohesion.
This map is apparently part of the Zero Covids plan to shut the border.
In fairness to them - at least they tried to provide some detail instead of the 8 months of sloganeering that they’ve been engaged in. However, to my mind this only confirms that they’ve absolutely no sense of how any of their claims on how to implement ZeroCovid would work in the real world.
… Wood drastically – Wood ‘drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’ You got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
21 Likes
It’s not his fault.
2 Likes
Will you bore us with this again tomorrow?
1 Like