SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Come on, Dwayne. You don’t seriously think that any government is implementing lockdown as some sort of power trip?

If anything, the governments that don’t push back against medical expert groups who recommend lockdown are being too reluctant to wield the power that comes with their role.

Like I said, I'm heavily biased. I don't think the lockdowns were implemented as a power trip but I do think some governments will be very reluctant to let them go.
 
Like I said, I'm heavily biased. I don't think the lockdowns were implemented as a power trip but I do think some governments will be very reluctant to let them go.

I see it more as decisions based on fear, rather than a thirst for power. They don’t want to be the person who gets blamed for thousands of deaths. If they rigorously stick to whatever advice they get from the medical expert groups then they avoid ever being taken to task for any decisions they made during the pandemic.

I can’t see any other upside for them in persisting with lockdown longer than necessary. Can you?
 
I see it more as decisions based on fear, rather than a thirst for power. They don’t want to be the person who gets blamed for thousands of deaths. If they rigorously stick to whatever advice they get from the medical expert groups then they avoid ever being taken to task for any decisions they made during the pandemic.

I can’t see any other upside for them in persisting with lockdown longer than necessary. Can you?

there were articles coming out of countries who used the ‘worse case’ scenario’s to install fear in order for justification of severe measurements during the lockdown.

this created a Pandora box of discussion. Is it ethically and morally justified to intentionally create fear for more acceptance of the strict policies or is it as they say in war and love all is allowed.
 
there were articles coming out of countries who used the ‘worse case’ scenario’s to install fear in order for justification of severe measurements during the lockdown.

this created a Pandora box of discussion. Is it ethically and morally justified to intentionally create fear for more acceptance of the strict policies or is it as they say in war and love all is allowed.

Or course it is. Just like it’s ethically and morally justified to encourage seatbelt wearing by alluding to deaths on the road, or prevent smoking by talking about cancer.
 
I see it more as decisions based on fear, rather than a thirst for power. They don’t want to be the person who gets blamed for thousands of deaths. If they rigorously stick to whatever advice they get from the medical expert groups then they avoid ever being taken to task for any decisions they made during the pandemic.

I can’t see any other upside for them in persisting with lockdown longer than necessary. Can you?

Initially, yes. Fear and safety. No doubt. But as it goes on, no government that has successfully achieved an increase in its power will willingly relinquish it (The Patriot Act in the US is a fine example here). My own federal government has so far tried to usurp the contract bidding process and passed legislation not related to the pandemic without going through the normal parliamentary procedure. That's a worry for me because they will repeat that behaviour.

There's plenty of upside to having people stay at home and not do much else.
 
Initially, yes. Fear and safety. No doubt. But as it goes on, no government that has successfully achieved an increase in its power will willingly relinquish it (The Patriot Act in the US is a fine example here). My own federal government has so far tried to usurp the contract bidding process and passed legislation not related to the pandemic without going through the normal parliamentary procedure. That's a worry for me because they will repeat that behaviour.

There's plenty of upside to having people stay at home and not do much else.

Really? I honestly can’t think of any. Certainly none that will outweigh the damage that does to the economy.
 
Or course it is. Just like it’s ethically and morally justified to encourage seatbelt wearing by alluding to deaths on the road, or prevent smoking by talking about cancer.

i’d argue there difference here is that encouraging seatbelts and prevent smoking is a different then total lockdowns, with results of economic desparity of business, increased mental health problems, child abuse, divorce rates etc.

the worse case scenario for driving without seatbelts and smoking could ultimately be death, that is a fair logical implication to propose. COVID has that same property and even more (in terms of consequences) and I don’t see politicans/experts saying that it was ‘unethical’ to do so in the two examples you mentioned.
 
Initially, yes. Fear and safety. No doubt. But as it goes on, no government that has successfully achieved an increase in its power will willingly relinquish it (The Patriot Act in the US is a fine example here). My own federal government has so far tried to usurp the contract bidding process and passed legislation not related to the pandemic without going through the normal parliamentary procedure. That's a worry for me because they will repeat that behaviour.

There's plenty of upside to having people stay at home and not do much else.

there is a reason why the second amendment was placed in the constitution of the United States and it wasn’t for fishing!
 
i’d argue there difference here is that encouraging seatbelts and prevent smoking is a different then total lockdowns, with results of economic desparity of business, increased mental health problems, child abuse, divorce rates etc.

the worse case scenario for driving without seatbelts and smoking could ultimately be death, that is a fair logical implication to propose. COVID has that same property and even more (in terms of consequences) and I don’t see politicans/experts saying that it was ‘unethical’ to do so in the two examples you mentioned.

Yes. Lockdowns are not the same as seatbelts and giving up smoking. Don’t see how this makes the ethics of an educational campaigns to support them any different. You need to warn people about worst case scenarios because telling smokers they might never get sick from smoking would be a shitty way to encourage them to quit.

I don’t know what point you’re making with your second paragraph.
 
Like I said, I'm heavily biased. I don't think the lockdowns were implemented as a power trip but I do think some governments will be very reluctant to let them go.

It's already happened and happening.

The UK passed the PCSC bill limiting the ability of the population to protest and strengthening governmental powers to punish protesters; coincidentally in an environment where protesters were seen by the general population as irresponsible Covid superspreaders.

The government has also announced an immigration bill strengthening governmental powers (allowing them to use reasonable force against migrants); again in an environment where the population is terrified of new vaccine resistant variants being brought into the country by unvaccinated people (unfortunately not many migrants fleeing their countries have access to the Pfizer jab before they arrive!)

Likewise governmental policies creating a de facto vaccine apartheid; allowing government the power to de facto discriminate against vaccine hesitant ethnicities (who're often hesitant for logical historic reasons - Google CIA fake vaccination drive) when hiring for jobs; as well as depriving those groups of the freedoms we enjoy.

This is before even looking at the freedoms that haven't yet been "given back" (hint: check how many emergency 9/11 powers have been revoked in the last 20 years)
 
Last edited:
It's already happened and happening.

The UK passed the PCSC bill limiting the ability of the population to protest and strengthening governmental powers to punish protesters; coincidentally in an environment where protesters were seen by the general population as irresponsible Covid superspreaders.

The government has also announced an immigration bill strengthening governmental powers (allowing them to use reasonable force against migrants); again in an environment where the population is terrified of new vaccine resistant variants being brought into the country by unvaccinated people (unfortunately not many migrants fleeing their countries have access to the Pfizer jab before they arrive!)

Likewise governmental policies creating a de facto vaccine apartheid; allowing government the power to de facto discriminate against vaccine hesitant ethnicities (who're often hesitant for logical historic reasons - Google CIA fake vaccination drive) when hiring for jobs; as well as depriving those groups of the freedoms we enjoy.

Is someone who doesn’t have a driving license deprived of the “freedoms we enjoy”?

How about someone whose license states they must wear glasses when they drive? Should they be ‘free’ to plough down pedestrians they’re too short-sighted to see?
 
Is someone who doesn’t have a driving license deprived of the “freedoms we enjoy”?

Are you comparing being vaccinated with having a driving license?

If so I'd ask whether there are logical historic or biological factors whereby a group of people who would be naturally hesitant or unable to pass a driving test and whether the government has taken those factors into account to avoid discrimination. For example if my office block is on the 5th floor current building regulations require a lift so that the disabled aren't de facto discriminated against. I can't just say if you can't get up these stairs then I can't offer you the job.

So for example if tomorrow a regulation were implemented stating that people without full use of both legs weren't allowed a driving license, I would state this to be discriminatory and a breach of their freedoms. I would say that the government would need to make reasonable adjustments in their policy to allow disabled people to continue driving so as to not discriminate against them (just like an office block installing a lift). For example this reasonable adjustment mught be that they can obtain a license but that their cars need to have mechanical elements installed to allow safe driving.

If we apply this to governmental jobs (say nursing for example) the "reasonable adjustments" which would avoid the policy being discriminatory would be for example to allow weekly PCR testing to those individuals instead of forcing them to be vaccinated.
 
Are you comparing being vaccinated with having a driving license?

If so I'd ask whether there are logical historic or biological factors whereby a group of people who would be naturally hesitant or unable to pass a driving test and whether the government has taken those factors into account to avoid discrimination. For example if my office block is on the 5th floor current building regulations require a lift so that the disabled aren't de facto discriminated against. I can't just say if you can't get up these stairs then I can't offer you the job.

So for example if tomorrow a regulation were implemented stating that people without full use of both legs weren't allowed a driving license, I would state this to be discriminatory and a breach of their freedoms. I would say that the government would need to make reasonable adjustments in their policy to allow disabled people to continue driving so as to not discriminate against them (just like an office block installing a lift). For example this reasonable adjustment mught be that they can obtain a license but that their cars need to have mechanical elements installed to allow safe driving.

If we apply this to governmental jobs (say nursing for example) the "reasonable adjustments" which would avoid the policy being discriminatory would be for example to allow weekly PCR testing to those individuals instead of forcing them to be vaccinated.

You analogy of choosing not to be vaccinated with being disabled is absolutely terrible (and, frankly, insulting to people living with disabilities). Obviously if someone has a legitimate medical reason why they are unable to be vaccinated then allowances will be made.

Taking that same terrible analogy and jumping the shark with the absolute guff about driving with a disability goes beyond terrible into the realms of laughable.
 
It's already happened and happening.

The UK passed the PCSC bill limiting the ability of the population to protest and strengthening governmental powers to punish protesters; coincidentally in an environment where protesters were seen by the general population as irresponsible Covid superspreaders.

The government has also announced an immigration bill strengthening governmental powers (allowing them to use reasonable force against migrants); again in an environment where the population is terrified of new vaccine resistant variants being brought into the country by unvaccinated people (unfortunately not many migrants fleeing their countries have access to the Pfizer jab before they arrive!)

Likewise governmental policies creating a de facto vaccine apartheid; allowing government the power to de facto discriminate against vaccine hesitant ethnicities (who're often hesitant for logical historic reasons - Google CIA fake vaccination drive) when hiring for jobs; as well as depriving those groups of the freedoms we enjoy.

This is before even looking at the freedoms that haven't yet been "given back" (hint: check how many emergency 9/11 powers have been revoked in the last 20 years)
If you were worried about the Governments ability to pass new laws without challenge you probably shouldn’t have voted for Brexit.
 
You analogy of choosing not to be vaccinated with being disabled is absolutely terrible (and, frankly, insulting to people living with disabilities). Obviously if someone has a legitimate medical reason why they are unable to be vaccinated then allowances will be made.

Taking that same terrible analogy and jumping the shark with the absolute guff about driving with a disability goes beyond terrible into the realms of laughable.

The government also doesn't allow discrimination on the basis of choosing to have children either. Employer's have to make reasonable adjustments to allow for people who have made that choice (whether that be in flexible hours or not sacking them for having 9 months off).

Likewise employers aren't allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of religion. So if someone chooses to pray 5 times a day an employer has to make reasonable adjustments and if they sack them for not working during those periods they would be sued for unfair dismissal.

Having to make reasonable adjustments on the basis of a policy or decision having the unforeseen byproduct of discriminating against a group of people is literally current UK law.
 
Yes. Lockdowns are not the same as seatbelts and giving up smoking. Don’t see how this makes the ethics of an educational campaigns to support them any different. You need to warn people about worst case scenarios because telling smokers they might never get sick from smoking would be a shitty way to encourage them to quit.

I don’t know what point you’re making with your second paragraph.

It does make it different in the sense that the consequences of lockdowns and covid are not only death. They have other severe consequences which did in fact happen such as businesses going bankrupt, increase in mental health, child/abuse etc. These are the direct results of models predicting worse case scenario's, with fear as the most important tool to create compliance. The question i have with this, besides the ethical side of it, where is the fine line? There are many examples to mention where politicians used fear for predictions that didn't happen to suit a certain interest/agenda of kind.

quote:
'Reliance on fear for public health messaging now could further erode trust in public health officials and scientists at a critical juncture.
The nation desperately needs a strategy that can help break through pandemic denialism and through the politically charged environment, with its threatening and at times hysterical rhetoric that has created opposition to sound public health measures.Even if ethically warranted, fear-based tactics may be dismissed as just one more example of political manipulation and could carry as much risk as benefit.

Instead, public health officials should boldly urge and, as they have during other crisis periods in the past, emphasize what has been sorely lacking: consistent, credible communication of the science at the national level.

full article: https://news.osu.edu/why-using-fear-to-promote-covid-19-vaccination-and-mask-wearing-could-backfire/
 
Images of death are a reality with COVID, over 2m deaths globally would attest to that id say. Not just a scare tactic but a proven reality. This could happen to anyone.

I’m not sure what agenda you are trying to push here @LazyRed-Ninja but I suspect it’s more than just for discussion points in your group as you would have us believe
 
Images of death are a reality with COVID, over 2m deaths globally would attest to that id say. Not just a scare tactic but a proven reality. This could happen to anyone.

I’m not sure what agenda you are trying to push here @LazyRed-Ninja but I suspect it’s more than just for discussion points in your group as you would have us believe

Agenda? i respectfully disagree. Corona was an unprecedented global health crisis, with unprecedented measures. I did not claim that governments implemented these unprecedented measures with evil intent, whatsoever.

I did state which i deem as a fair question, how far can a government go using fear for compliance, not specifically related to Corona, but in politics as general. Furthermore, i did say that the lockdowns came with great consequences. I don't see anything wrong with this statement, considering its not proposed as an argument against the public health strategy? are we not allowed to say that lockdowns resulted in negative effects? without it being used as an argument against the chosen public health strategy.
 
Last edited:
How are people still spending time arguing with that guy?

That guy that says that vaccination is vital to get this pandemic under control ? What 'exactly' is the 'argument'? I've not proposed that lock downs are done with evil intent, nor did i propose that the chosen health strategy is wrong. I've discussed natural immunity and immunity through vaccination and never once said that natural immunity is better. Its not an either or, considering that you need a functioning immune system to begin with for vaccines to be effective.

That is all. we're all in this together and in times of polarization and hardship people need to stand behind science and medicine and listen to experts who know more then us! I do want to emphasis that one should always use critical analysis in stead of blind following another one's opinion.
 
Mask mandate back in effect in my county starting Thursday. We are at 68% fully vaccinated and 95% aged 65+ fully vaccinated, but the trendline is starting to go more and more vertical each day. Really worried about what I am seeing with the 0-11 populations. Those cohorts are already almost at 50% of their winter peak while the adult population is around 10-20%.
 
Tornado sirens went off at around 3 today. Nothing like combining multiple classes into the floor in the same corner of a single room during a pandemic.

For some of the kids it was their first day back in school since March of 2020.
 
Like I said, I'm heavily biased. I don't think the lockdowns were implemented as a power trip but I do think some governments will be very reluctant to let them go.

Here our Federal.and State governments would love to let them go as soon as possible but can't as letting go people die is far more frowned upon.

Even WA who are the most reluctant to unlock when wecare better vaccinated are mainly taking this stance on the back of a landslide electoral victory based on how well they kept everyone safe - basically covid free through the whole pandemic. They want to open up but will lag slightly - that is all.
 
That guy that says that vaccination is vital to get this pandemic under control ? What 'exactly' is the 'argument'? I've not proposed that lock downs are done with evil intent, nor did i propose that the chosen health strategy is wrong. I've discussed natural immunity and immunity through vaccination and never once said that natural immunity is better. Its not an either or, considering that you need a functioning immune system to begin with for vaccines to be effective.

That is all. we're all in this together and in times of polarization and hardship people need to stand behind science and medicine and listen to experts who know more then us! I do want to emphasis that one should always use critical analysis in stead of blind following another one's opinion.

You’ve contradicted yourself there. I have a medical degree so I wouldn’t dream of trying to tell an astrophysicist I intended to use “critical analysis” on every piece of advice they give me relevant to their field of expertise. Because I don’t have the academic background to make any sense of the evidence base on which they base their opinions.

This whole “do your own research” mentality completely misses the point when it’s being used by people that don’t have the qualifications you need to do that research properly. So you can’t simultaneously listen to experts and do your own “critical analysis”.

Don’t take this too personally but in my discussions with you so far (in this thread and via PM) it couldn’t be more obvious that you lack a lot of the most basic tools you need to property understand what’s being discussed. Never mind challenge people who are way more qualified than you are. This doesn’t mean you’re slow or stupid, or poorly educated. It just means you haven’t had the very specific training required to understand the extremely complex concepts relevant to the issues here.
 
It does make it different in the sense that the consequences of lockdowns and covid are not only death. They have other severe consequences which did in fact happen such as businesses going bankrupt, increase in mental health, child/abuse etc. These are the direct results of models predicting worse case scenario's, with fear as the most important tool to create compliance. The question i have with this, besides the ethical side of it, where is the fine line? There are many examples to mention where politicians used fear for predictions that didn't happen to suit a certain interest/agenda of kind.

quote:
'Reliance on fear for public health messaging now could further erode trust in public health officials and scientists at a critical juncture.
The nation desperately needs a strategy that can help break through pandemic denialism and through the politically charged environment, with its threatening and at times hysterical rhetoric that has created opposition to sound public health measures.Even if ethically warranted, fear-based tactics may be dismissed as just one more example of political manipulation and could carry as much risk as benefit.

Instead, public health officials should boldly urge and, as they have during other crisis periods in the past, emphasize what has been sorely lacking: consistent, credible communication of the science at the national level.

full article: https://news.osu.edu/why-using-fear-to-promote-covid-19-vaccination-and-mask-wearing-could-backfire/

In AU the main economic damage has occurred when outbreaks occurred. Lockdowns have been very successful atpreventi g of like it g outbreaks. Lockdowns have been a massive net economic benefit.

Where we have failed, the current NSW outbreak in particular, has been due to not locking g down hard or fast enough.
 
Images of death are a reality with COVID, over 2m deaths globally would attest to that id say. Not just a scare tactic but a proven reality. This could happen to anyone.

I’m not sure what agenda you are trying to push here @LazyRed-Ninja but I suspect it’s more than just for discussion points in your group as you would have us believe


I think we are officially past 4 million deaths and as India alone has over 4 million excess deaths I'd say that is probably a huge underestimate.
 
I think we are officially past 4 million deaths and as India alone has over 4 million excess deaths I'd say that is probably a huge underestimate.
Wow shows you the last time I checked the numbers. Makes my point even valid. People should be scared to the point they use caution.
 
there were articles coming out of countries who used the ‘worse case’ scenario’s to install fear in order for justification of severe measurements during the lockdown.

this created a Pandora box of discussion. Is it ethically and morally justified to intentionally create fear for more acceptance of the strict policies or is it as they say in war and love all is allowed.

This is a pandemic that has so far killed over 4 million people (likely far far higher as excess deaths are much higher despite fewer flu deaths) so almost all countries didn't prepare for anywhere near a worse case scenario.

People should be afraid. I'd say a lack of fear has contributed to this shit show significantly. A government's duty is to keep people safe. Pretending that all is well to avoid "project fear" dies the opposite.
 
Tornado sirens went off at around 3 today. Nothing like combining multiple classes into the floor in the same corner of a single room during a pandemic.

For some of the kids it was their first day back in school since March of 2020.
Oh Christ. Rock and a hard place
 
i’d argue there difference here is that encouraging seatbelts and prevent smoking is a different then total lockdowns, with results of economic desparity of business, increased mental health problems, child abuse, divorce rates etc.

the worse case scenario for driving without seatbelts and smoking could ultimately be death, that is a fair logical implication to propose. COVID has that same property and even more (in terms of consequences) and I don’t see politicans/experts saying that it was ‘unethical’ to do so in the two examples you mentioned.

When people are too stupid to protect themselves government has a duty to act. So in that sense all covid reduction measures imposed are the same as smoking and seatbelt laws. For the same reason universal vaccination should be actively encouraged by governments with both incentives and punishments.

We can then get back to a situation where people can have as many mass protests as they like, and I'll be there for many of them, but until then people should stay home and stop trying to harm the rest of us. The world is a way off being out of this pandemic at the moment.