Keap your pointy beak out of it.
Everything ok? You seem a bit agitated. Looking for fights everywhere.
1 Like
What a tedious topic⌠But a set of general points, not specifically to you.
There was no alternative to lockdown, because the medical system in Britain (and in Ireland) would not have been able to cope with the level of infection that would have resulted from non lockdown. This point is established fact. And no amount of guffing about Sweden or anywhere else will change this reality. Most of the âlet everyone get Covidâ merchants simply ignore this factor and continue on in blind ignorance being anti lockdown/anti vaccine/anti whatever, because such ignorance is part of their personality alibi portfolio. There was no alternative, due to prior disorganization (especially in the NHS), to lockdown.
Said reality, as the Covid inquiry has clearly heard, is that lockdown in Britain should have come at least 13 days earlier than it did. The reality of waxing non lockdown infection levels is what drove even Boris Johnson to make that decision â loathe though he was to upset his cheerleaders in the British media gutter.
Which or whether, no one has ever dealt with a key point â one I made here in 2020 and subsequently made plenty of other times. The further reality is that the majority of people, in the absence of a lockdown, would have imposed a lockdown on themselves. The âlet it ripâ merchants conveniently forget that lockdown was a highly popular measure. Any politician dependent on populist inanities could only find that dynamic rather trying. Key question: how was the government to force people to travel and to mix? The truth is that such measures would have meant an inverted lockdown. The government, instead of compelling people to stay at home, would have had to compel people to travel. Is there, on libertarian grounds, a substantive difference in principle between the two measures? No, there is not. But the âlet everyone get Covidâ merchants here and elsewhere appear not to have the intellect to grasp such issues. And articulating this key point has yet to touch on highly complex issues around employment law (for starters: does an employer have the right to expose an employee to medical risk?) and insurance. People who possess neither the intellect nor the temperament to ask themselves hard questions have no credible opinion to offer. Living in a black and white video game world probably suits personality alibi merchants, because they love the idea of simple answers to torturously difficult questions. But the vast majority of people, including me, want to live in the real world, which is often a grey world full of difficult questions.
None of my observations alter the fact that much of lockdown in Britain was a shit show and a locus of corruption. But those realities had far more to do with a certain truth than with lockdown per se. That certain truth: Tory governments of the last decade have consistently been a shit show and a locus of corruption. What else was going to happen in a crisis other than an intensification of overall traitsâŚ
The fact that some people, nearly four years later, are still making the same non arguments in face of the same non realities says a lot about them but almost nothing about the realities of a pandemic. Some people here have a lot to say about Big Pharma but nothing to say about Big Agriculture, because being anti climate change is a central component in the personality alibi portfolio. I laugh at times, seeing the contortions and the self contradictions induced by a particular cast of mind and the same lads so blithely unaware of these twists because their brain is tuned to the simple solutions channel. There is a kind of comedy in watching the malicious stupid.
4 Likes
Exactly. HysteriaâŚ
No.
You are still believing/telling the same lies nearly four years later. I would find that situation rather embarrassing. You have never been able to articulate even a single credible counterargument to any one of my key points.
See, there is no way out of being the hypocrite who wanted the government to compel people to travel and to mix. As I noted, there is no substantive difference in principle between that measure and a measure compelling people not to travel and not to mix. I have thought about these issues. You have not.
Your entire defence relies on the idea that lockdowns were effective. They werenât, and the onus isnât on me to pr9ve that they were.
Stop playing these silly rhetorical games
1 Like
It is generally accepted now that broad based lockdowns only had a minor impact and in no way justified the damage to overall health care provision, mental health, education and the economy. We are only seeing the front end of the carnage caused by this moronic approach and the full impact to society is yet to be seen.
2 Likes
Rubbish. You are only blustering because you know you cannot deal with my points. I do not have to prove anything about lockdownsâ absolute effectiveness â and it always with absolutes that your thoughts magnetize. I merely said there was no credible alternative to British lockdown in March 2020, because the medical system would have been overwhelmed by infection rates, which is 100% true and accurate. Whether that lockdown was âeffectiveâ by your criteria is irrelevant, because your criteria long ago lost any contact with reality.
I would not say you do not have the capacity to think. But you are certainly unwilling to think. As I said to you before, you would do far better to admit you were wrong and move on.
Or would you care to tell us why you think it wrong for the government to compel people to avoid mixing but would have been correct for the government to compel people to mix?
Rubbish.
Let us never forget that you are the individual who confidently pronounced in summer of 2020 that we were âdone with Covidâ. You have no credibility whatsoever on the subject. You also have zero credibility on this subject and many others because such subjects are merely pigeons struggling and fluttering before release from a right wing top hat.
But by all means entertain us by indicating why it was wrong for the government to compel people to avoid mixing but would have been right for the government to compel people to mix. You are the one who puts yourself forward as an ultra libertarian.
1 Like
Lying doesnât help your cause, fire up the post where I said we were done with Covid.
If governments and the WHO were doing their job they would have issued warnings in early January 2020 and put measures in place to protect the vulnerable in nursing homes and hospitals. Instead they stayed in denial for two months and then implemented moron lockdowns.
1 Like
You have such a simplistic, stark and binary interpretation of everything that i can only assume you only eat only potatoes because potatoes have been proved âeffectiveâ
2 Likes
The lie is yours. You did make exactly that statement â and you concede my point by lying about having made that statement â and everyone interested here knows same. To disown said statement by accepting its ridiculousness would be in a measure gracious. But to disown it by resorting to a lie⌠Speaks for itself.
Reducing social interaction to reduce the transmission of an airborne virus was a blunt approach but it was all they had prior to the vaccine. You may say this is untrue but thatâs because youâre mad as a brush.
Here we go⌠The word salad game. Say âbinaryâ in a completely ludicrous fashion and assert assert assert. I am a long way above that nonsense.
I will give you one more chance (or I will take your unwillingness to engage with this issue an ungracious concession of its central truth): would you tell us why it was wrong for the government to compel people to avoid mixing but would have been correct for the government to compel people to mix?
I agree with these words except the penultimate one.
1 Like
It was pointless, futile and counter productive- for most people. If theyd wanted to do something effective they should have told everyone to take 2000iu of vitamin d.
Go back and read the first Covid thread and try and educate yourself.
The reality by mid year 2020 was that Covid was here to stay and measures to contain it were largely ineffectual and counterproductive. Thatâs the context of my thoughts on that timeframe, a sound bite doesnât help your argument.
You need to develop as little humility as you have zero understanding of the issues surrounding Covid/Covid response and its impact on society. Maybe if you experienced life outside of the pub it would improve your perspective.
1 Like
Jaysus. Could you imagine doing this?
3 Likes
Iâd love an auld lockdown
1 Like
Thereâs a difference between let it rip, and sensible precautions and hard lockdown for all.
There was significant over capacity as it turned out really
The most vulnerable groups were completely screwed over in all of this, as the least vulnerable by and large enjoyed the break.
3 Likes