Cancel the pandemic and lockdowns

[Evmetro]

Just for some fun, what do you think would happen if all lockdowns and all rules regarding coronavirus were suddenly dropped, and there were no more restrictions? Do you think the ultimate number of deaths years from now would change? Do you believe we would see a spike in the curve? Maybe we'd all just forget that covid was a thing? What are your guesses?

[Evmetro]

My guess, based on all the responses to this thread so far, is that nobody suspects anything unusual or bad would happen. Personally, I have not changed anything in my life since we first heard about the novel coronavirus. I still go to work every day, I still read and watch lots of news every day, and I am still a political forum junkie. The only thing that I see different is a little less traffic, I see lots of weird behavior at stores, and some of my stocks are worth a bit less.

[Drummond]

Removing all restrictions would be escapist in the extreme. If Covid-19 had sentience, it'd want to thank you for your idea.

Who knows, if Covid-19 did have sentience, it might agree that your idea was 'fun'.

There would be one good effect: the obvious one of moving somewhat quickly to herd immunity. This assumes one crucial fact to BE one, and REMAIN one ... that immunity happens before far more lethal mutations evolve.

It might well do. But, there's no guarantee.

There would be one extremely bad effect: the avoidable suffering and death coming out of it. Any / all healthcare systems taking the brunt of it, being quickly overwhelmed. Other fatal illnesses wouldn't be treated, either.

How many thousands of grieving family members would 'thank' any authority that maximised, & thereby caused, the chance of all those additional deaths becoming reality ?

Would the precedent of the Spanish flu be repeated .. the outbreak of a second wave of infection, mutation existing, making it a far more lethal disease ?

You know, I'm struck by one very strange reality. On the one hand, everyone grieves for and thinks unjust that 3,000 people died during the 9/11 attack. But when it comes to contemplating death tolls dwarfing what was true of that day .. why is there so much more willingness to accept them ?

[Evmetro]

Removing all restrictions would be escapist in the extreme. If Covid-19 had sentience, it'd want to thank you for your idea.

There would be one good effect: the obvious one of moving somewhat quickly to herd immunity. This assumes one crucial fact to BE one, and REMAIN one ... that immunity happens before far more lethal mutations evolve.

It might well do. But, there's no guarantee.

There would be one extremely bad effect: the avoidable suffering and death coming out of it. Any / all healthcare systems taking the brunt of it, being quickly overwhelmed. Other fatal illnesses wouldn't be treated, either.

How many thousands of grieving family members would 'thank' any authority that maximised, & thereby caused, the chance of all those additional deaths becoming reality ?

You know, I'm struck by one very strange reality. On the one hand, everyone grieves for and thinks unjust that 3,000 people died during the 9/11 attack. But when it comes to contemplating death tolls dwarfing what was true of that day .. why is there so much more willingness to accept them ?
Thank you for your thoughts, very interesting. Have you seen any info about the notion that the total number of cases and deaths are inevitable and that lockdowns only smooth the spikes in the curve? If so, wouldn't this mean that all these deaths are still going to occur regardless of lockdowns?

I've really enjoyed all the conflict that I've seen you engaged in on recent threads. I dont agree with you much, but I love how you stick to your guns.

[Abbey Marie]

Based on the fact that some countries that did tight lockdowns (e.g., South Korea and Singapore) emerged in good shape, I think a total opening would result in a pretty big spike.

But if we would just wait for 14 days of decreasing numbers, we’d not have to wonder.

[Evmetro]

Based on the fact that some countries that did tight lockdowns (e.g., South Korea and Singapore) emerged in good shape, I think a total opening would result in a pretty big spike.

But it if we would just wait for 14 days of decreasing numbers, we’d not have to wonder.

Lol, I'd be happy just to see 14 days of numbers that I could believe.

If we did get those 14 days of decreasing numbers and then lockdowns were lifted, do you think the ultimate number of deaths from this would be less than if we saw this big spike? I've understood that the lockdowns were not meant to reduce the total, but rather to smooth the curve.

[Hot Dogger]

The death rate would increase greatly because people would start going back to see doctors and hospitals.

[Abbey Marie]

Lol, I'd be happy just to see 14 days of numbers that I could believe.

If we did get those 14 days of decreasing numbers and then lockdowns were lifted, do you think the ultimate number of deaths from this would be less than if we saw this big spike? I've understood that the lockdowns were not meant to reduce the total, but rather to smooth the curve.

I guess I do, but’s it’s a guessing game at this point.

[Evmetro]

I guess I do, but’s it’s a guessing game at this point.

Interesting, thanks. What is your understanding of the reason for the lock downs in the first place? It is difficult to find an official statement of purpose, but all I've been able to find suggests that the lock downs are only meant to control the rate of deaths and cases that will inevitably occur. It feels like the msm is trying to sell a notion that the lock downs will actually reduce the ultimate numbers, but all I can find is stuff about flattening the curve.

[LongTermGuy]

Open everything up.... (keep basic rules) everybody just be smart...keep distance..wash hands...ETC....if one is "sick" stay home....(get someone to shop for you)

Lowes...Home depo ..walmart..grocery stores... all have been open for a while now.... NO.. problems...

Enjoy the virus killing sunshine and warmth...and get on with life...

**Oh...One more thing...get rid of the liberal mandated useless masks...(just ware them if sick and at home
(where you should be)

..........to prevent Flem from flying all over the place.

[Kathianne]

How weird, a doctor that thinks UK should open up:

The author: Mar 26, 2020 · John Lee is a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist. This article was originally published in The Spectator ’s UK magazine. Subscribe to the US edition here.

https://spectator.us/ten-reasons-end-lockdown-now/#



Ten reasons to end the lockdown now
Lockdown is impairing our ability to live with the effects of this virus, while not changing the long game
Dr John Lee

Writing in this magazine a month ago, I applauded the British government’s stated aim of trying to follow the science in dealing with COVID. Such promises are easier made than kept. Following science means understanding science. It means engaging with rival interpretations of the limited data in order to tease out what is most important in what we don’t know. Instead, the government in the UK (and many other places) seems uninterested in alternative viewpoints. The chosen narrative — that lockdown has saved countless lives — has been doggedly followed by all spokespeople. No doubt is allowed. We have been seeing the groupthink response to a perceived external threat that Jonathan Haidt describes so lucidly in his excellent book on human moral thinking, The Righteous Mind.


It has now become a matter of faith that lockdown is vital. Not only is it believed to be causally responsible for ‘flattening the curve’, but it is feared that releasing it too soon may cause a second spike in cases and ‘economic disaster’ (presumably due to further huge numbers of deaths). On what evidence is this made?


Even if you could understand why lockdown was imposed, it very rapidly became apparent that it had not been thought through. Not in terms of the wider effects on society (which have yet to be counted) and not even in terms of the ways that the virus itself might behave. But at the start, there was hardly any evidence. Everyone was guessing. Now we have a world of evidence, from around the globe, and the case for starting to reverse lockdown is compelling. Here are 10 reasons why I believe that it is wrong to continue with lockdown and why we should start to reverse it immediately and rapidly.


1. You cannot understand the significance of this virus simply by looking at the raw death figures

...

[SassyLady]

Just for some fun, what do you think would happen if all lockdowns and all rules regarding coronavirus were suddenly dropped, and there were no more restrictions? Do you think the ultimate number of deaths years from now would change? Do you believe we would see a spike in the curve? Maybe we'd all just forget that covid was a thing? What are your guesses?

Yes, I think the death rate would go up until we developed a vaccine to slow it down just like we do with other viruses. And then, yes, we would probably not be as concerned every year when the hot period shows up.

[Drummond]

Thank you for your thoughts, very interesting. Have you seen any info about the notion that the total number of cases and deaths are inevitable and that lockdowns only smooth the spikes in the curve? If so, wouldn't this mean that all these deaths are still going to occur regardless of lockdowns?

I've really enjoyed all the conflict that I've seen you engaged in on recent threads. I dont agree with you much, but I love how you stick to your guns.

Well, now, I'm so glad that I've entertained you ! Of course I stick to my guns. Since my views and outlook are correct, why would I do anything else ?

There's only one form of conflict I enjoy on this forum, Evmetro, and that is trouncing Lefties. THEY, RICHLY DESERVE IT. But as for the rest; I feel embittered. It turns out that the Conservatives here aren't quite MY form of Conservative, after all. I say that the individual matters, therefore, individual human life matters. I'm shocked to see that this isn't shared here by others; and it's why, if I do leave, leaving here will be no loss, after all.

Evmetro, regarding your first paragraph ... your contention is easily disproved. Imagine elderly people, permanently sitting at home, feeding themselves via food deliveries, minimising all human contact to its barest minimum. Such people stand such a good chance of so isolating themselves that they live on for many years. So, 'all those deaths', right there, are avoided.

The same could also be true for a proportion of others ... who choose to live, as the naughty individualists they are.

So, sorry. Choice plays its part, even if only to a degree. Presumably, a society committed to an intact herd immunity effect, might pose the question: 'Do we force everybody, regardless of choice, to be exposed to the virus' ?

Then, of course, you get into incredibly murky waters. Such as, are laws passed to mandate virus injections for the 'unwilling' ? Would Governors resist this, or indeed, would they encourage it ?

Perhaps COTUS can provide guidance ? Or ... possibly not (??). In truth, I've no idea.

I can only say that I have a Government, and efficient system of Government at that, which is far more humane.

[Drummond]

Yes, I think the death rate would go up until we developed a vaccine to slow it down just like we do with other viruses. And then, yes, we would probably not be as concerned every year when the hot period shows up.

Saying 'the death rate would go up' is quite an understatement, Sassy. It'd skyrocket, becoming many times what it was before.

But that's not the entire problem. There's also the problem of possible mutation. Viruses mutate ! The Spanish flu of a century ago set the precedent ... there was a second wave of infection, back then, where the virus had mutated to become far more deadly.

In fact, this is maybe the worst fault with herd immunity. Could the virus mutate sufficiently so that its newer form beat the immunity to the older form ? If that were true, you'd be back to square one, maybe hoping that a new herd immunity from a FAR DEADLIER virus could be achieved and at the same time your society somehow remained viable.

Hopefully you'd then slam your borders shut, for the sake of humanity as a whole ... belatedly ... maybe ... ??

[Drummond]

How weird, a doctor that thinks UK should open up:

The author: Mar 26, 2020 · John Lee is a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist. This article was originally published in The Spectator ’s UK magazine. Subscribe to the US edition here.

https://spectator.us/ten-reasons-end-lockdown-now/#

We're in agreement !! :dance:

... yep. Very weird, indeed ....

[Kathianne]

We're in agreement !! :dance:

... yep. Very weird, indeed ....

Could be, then again, science. :dance:

[Drummond]

Could be, then again, science. :dance:

This would be the science that only one scientist may see, as opposed to all those other scientists whose scientific studies leads them elsewhere ?

So, tell me. Should a Government whose decisions are led by scientific advice, follow a direction suggested by one scientist, and ignore everybody else ?

I'm sure that, if my Government did that, you'd be the first to find it ludicrous.

[Evmetro]

Well, now, I'm so glad that I've entertained you ! Of course I stick to my guns. Since my views and outlook are correct, why would I do anything else ?

There's only one form of conflict I enjoy on this forum, Evmetro, and that is trouncing Lefties. THEY, RICHLY DESERVE IT. But as for the rest; I feel embittered. It turns out that the Conservatives here aren't quite MY form of Conservative, after all. I say that the individual matters, therefore, individual human life matters. I'm shocked to see that this isn't shared here by others; and it's why, if I do leave, leaving here will be no loss, after all.

Evmetro, regarding your first paragraph ... your contention is easily disproved. Imagine elderly people, permanently sitting at home, feeding themselves via food deliveries, minimising all human contact to its barest minimum. Such people stand such a good chance of so isolating themselves that they live on for many years. So, 'all those deaths', right there, are avoided.

The same could also be true for a proportion of others ... who choose to live, as the naughty individualists they are.

So, sorry. Choice plays its part, even if only to a degree. Presumably, a society committed to an intact herd immunity effect, might pose the question: 'Do we force everybody, regardless of choice, to be exposed to the virus' ?

Then, of course, you get into incredibly murky waters. Such as, are laws passed to mandate virus injections for the 'unwilling' ? Would Governors resist this, or indeed, would they encourage it ?

Perhaps COTUS can provide guidance ? Or ... possibly not (??). In truth, I've no idea.

I can only say that I have a Government, and efficient system of Government at that, which is far more humane.

You have an interesting hypothesis, and it very well might be accurate. Do you have any information that would substantiate this notion that lockdowns could effect the ultimate number of infections? I have my own theory, but I cannot substantiate yours or mine. We may use our own logic to draw our own conclusions, but that does not mean either of us is correct.

[Kathianne]

This would be the science that only one scientist may see, as opposed to all those other scientists whose scientific studies leads them elsewhere ?

So, tell me. Should a Government whose decisions are led by scientific advice, follow a direction suggested by one scientist, and ignore everybody else ?

I'm sure that, if my Government did that, you'd be the first to find it ludicrous.

It's not only one doctor, but whatever. You really only can deal with what your government tells you to consider, including THE definition of science. It means what you want it to mean. :rolleyes: That actually is the opposite of scientific.

[Drummond]

It's not only one doctor, but whatever. You really only can deal with what your government tells you to consider, including THE definition of science. It means what you want it to mean. :rolleyes: That actually is the opposite of scientific.

... sorry, what ?

Are you refuting the scientific qualifications, and claim to expertise in each of their chosen fields, of every scientist that the Government is listening to ? Because if those scientists ARE well grounded in their knowledge of their scientific fields, there can be no reason not to listen to them, and respect their findings.

Perhaps they are 'actually the opposite of scientific', just because you don't agree with them ?

[Kathianne]

... sorry, what ?

Are you refuting the scientific qualifications, and claim to expertise in each of their chosen fields, of every scientist that the Government is listening to ? Because if those scientists ARE well grounded in their knowledge of their scientific fields, there can be no reason not to listen to them, and respect their findings.

Perhaps they are 'actually the opposite of scientific', just because you don't agree with them ?
Actually the reference was not to the scientists. :coffee:

[Drummond]

You have an interesting hypothesis, and it very well might be accurate. Do you have any information that would substantiate this notion that lockdowns could effect the ultimate number of infections? I have my own theory, but I cannot substantiate yours or mine. We may use our own logic to draw our own conclusions, but that does not mean either of us is correct.

Just use commonsense !!

If people can cut themselves off from instances where they are exposed to the virus, then, they don't contract it ! Viruses aren't magical. They don't wave microscopic magic wands, say a spell, and then everybody's infected !

If lockdowns don't work, how is it that country after country that implements one, can engineer declines in infection ? Is it because some of the virus decides to 'take a day off' ... ???

[Evmetro]

This would be the science that only one scientist may see, as opposed to all those other scientists whose scientific studies leads them elsewhere ?

So, tell me. Should a Government whose decisions are led by scientific advice, follow a direction suggested by one scientist, and ignore everybody else ?

I'm sure that, if my Government did that, you'd be the first to find it ludicrous.

Lol, the notion that any government makes decisions led by scientific advice sounds kinda sketchy. If a government actually did do this, I'd bet those who provided the scientific advice were on the government payroll. I'm glad for your comfort of knowing your government is altruistic and good, but I dont trust ANY government.

[Kathianne]

Just use commonsense !!

If people can cut themselves off from instances where they are exposed to the virus, then, they don't contract it ! Viruses aren't magical. They don't wave microscopic magic wands, say a spell, and then everybody's infected !

If lockdowns don't work, how is it that country after country that implements one, can engineer declines in infection ? Is it because some of the virus decides to 'take a day off' ... ???
You're basically arguing that the world become many North Korea hermit kingdoms. What happens after? Do you really think that the virus will not pop up when people move again? Is this to go on forever? Is that what it takes to make you safe?

OR

Will it take Boris Johnson saying something like, "Our scientists have determined through data that now is the time to begin to open up!"

[Drummond]

Actually the reference was not to the scientists. :coffee:

You mean, you were just attacking my Government, because it follows scientific advice ?

What would you have them do, then ? DEFY that advice ?

Or maybe you just fundamentally oppose the very scenario of a Government, actually governing !!

[The clue's in the name ..]

[Kathianne]

You mean, you were just attacking my Government, because it follows scientific advice ?

What would you have them do, then ? DEFY that advice ?

Or maybe you just fundamentally oppose the very scenario of a Government, actually governing !!

[The clue's in the name ..]
Nope, not a bit. Haven't heard your government going off on US, just you and some of your more liberal media.

[Drummond]

Nope, not a bit. Haven't heard your government going off on US, just you and some of your more liberal media.

Indeed ! Our Government, to the best of mine or anybody else's knowledge, has not been 'going off on US'. The timing of our border lockdown was of course suspicious, suggesting that our Government had been trying, for days, to get the US to exercise responsible policies on its border control, should the US threaten us with a 2nd pandemic version of Wuhan.

However, nothing of that has been reported by our media.

I think there's just the one very good reason why our Government wouldn't 'go off on the US'. Namely, that even before the virus appeared, we were working to get as good a trade deal with the US as we could manage. Now, after the virus, we'll need that trade with the US far more !!

We'd be fools to bite the hand that may feed us ... just as the general public, here, would be fools if we defy our caring Government.

[jimnyc]

It turns out that the Conservatives here aren't quite MY form of Conservative, after all. I say that the individual matters, therefore, individual human life matters. I'm shocked to see that this isn't shared here by others; and it's why, if I do leave, leaving here will be no loss, after all.

Interesting.

I have disagreements with folks all the time. Sometimes I apologize and sometimes others have. But on the large scale, we're friends and all understand one another and are aware we don't all disagree on everything.

You're saying that we disagree on this matter, we are basically no longer "your" definition of a conservative, and therefore DP matters little now and we are folks that can be discarded without loss. :laugh2:

Ok then. Glad I made ANY effort. :rolleyes:

And yeah, you're right too! :rolleyes:

And not smug :rolleyes:

And not disrespectful :rolleyes:

And not unaware of your own actions :rolleyes:

And not unable to see how you act :rolleyes:

I was reading down the thread and had an idea of what I wanted to write about, until I got here. Then I realized exactly WHY and WHERE the disconnect is. That much is clear and obvious, and now made clearer in how you feel truly about folks here, and the respect you have for them.

Oh, and yes, we hope everyone dies and that no individual life matters. :rolleyes:

Why have you ignored the UK protecting itself but how will they protect ME, and what are they doing to stop ALL outgoing citizens and visitors from getting others sick? Reckless. :rolleyes:

True colors come out. Disagree with someone on something, and you're disposable. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

We're in agreement !! :dance:

... yep. Very weird, indeed ....


How weird is it that the UK will limit incoming folks, JUST like the USA. And they are doing NOTHING that I can see about folks visiting other countries and what not. And just internal, opening up is reckless. I mean, what's it been, about 7 days since the Gov of georgia was a "criminal" and our COTUS was just a piece of parchment.

Now the UK will follow suit, but all will be Aok because it's Boris's government or the BBC saying so. :rolleyes::laugh:

An awful lot of recklessness coming from around the UK. Hope none of those unthoughtful and criminal fuckers don't end up near me.

[Drummond]

You're basically arguing that the world become many North Korea hermit kingdoms. What happens after? Do you really think that the virus will not pop up when people move again? Is this to go on forever? Is that what it takes to make you safe?

This is very close to the truth ... yes.

How couldn't it be ??

The virus, even if it exists in a single room-full of people, does exist, and given the smallest of opportunities, will escape and spread.

Check out figures for country after country. Always, the infection starts with one or two people being infected. Then, the infection grows, as it infects, exponentially.

I thought you knew this ?

The only true 'safety' will come, ideally, from an outright cure. Or, over a longer period, from mass vaccination. Or, after horrific suffering, and IF the virus doesn't mutate, from herd immunity.

Otherwise, when people move again, the virus WILL re-emerge once more.



OR

Will it take Boris Johnson saying something like, "Our scientists have determined through data that now is the time to begin to open up!"

Scientists saying such a thing will not do so from a standpoint of saying that all deaths will cease.

Remember the chief reason why, in the UK, we instituted a lockdown in the first place, namely, to see to it that our NHS has manageable quantities of people needing their care.

Go for herd immunity in the US, and watch your healthcare system buckle under the weight of need from the infected citizens needing them !

You think that herd immunity methodology, once implemented, won't prove to be horrific ??

[jimnyc]

It's not only one doctor, but whatever. You really only can deal with what your government tells you to consider, including THE definition of science. It means what you want it to mean. :rolleyes: That actually is the opposite of scientific.

If it comes from their government, so long as conservative of course, then it's science lead and thought out and the decision to follow. But if our government makes a decision contrary, well, then they are reckless, not listening and in fact criminal. It's downright funny to see the hypocrisy.

[jimnyc]

You're basically arguing that the world become many North Korea hermit kingdoms. What happens after? Do you really think that the virus will not pop up when people move again? Is this to go on forever? Is that what it takes to make you safe?

OR

Will it take Boris Johnson saying something like, "Our scientists have determined through data that now is the time to begin to open up!"

Of COURSE it's different if they come out and say so!! Have you not been paying attention? They lead by science and care for others!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh::laugh::rolleyes::rolle yes:

[jimnyc]

This thread is a waste of time. I have been made disposable, so no point in a single message being sent for me. I'll join in with other threads. Peace.

[Kathianne]

This is very close to the truth ... yes.

How couldn't it be ??

The virus, even if it exists in a single room-full of people, does exist, and given the smallest of opportunities, will escape and spread.

Check out figures for country after country. Always, the infection starts with one or two people being infected. Then, the infection grows, as it infects, exponentially.

I thought you knew this ?

The only true 'safety' will come, ideally, from an outright cure. Or, over a longer period, from mass vaccination. Or, after horrific suffering, and IF the virus doesn't mutate, from herd immunity.

Otherwise, when people move again, the virus WILL re-emerge once more.



Scientists saying such a thing will not do so from a standpoint of saying that all deaths will cease.

Remember the chief reason why, in the UK, we instituted a lockdown in the first place, namely, to see to it that our NHS has manageable quantities of people needing their care.

Go for herd immunity in the US, and watch your healthcare system buckle under the weight of need from the infected citizens needing them !

You think that herd immunity methodology, once implemented, won't prove to be horrific ??
And you? When told it’s “now” time to open up? You will decide to stay home or go out. Choice.

[Evmetro]

Just use commonsense !!

If people can cut themselves off from instances where they are exposed to the virus, then, they don't contract it ! Viruses aren't magical. They don't wave microscopic magic wands, say a spell, and then everybody's infected !

If lockdowns don't work, how is it that country after country that implements one, can engineer declines in infection ? Is it because some of the virus decides to 'take a day off' ... ???

My inner commie uses that kind of simple logic to draw conclusions about complicated things, but I have read enough at this point to know that there is an entire branch of science dedicated to the study of viruses. I am having to learn a lot of basics of virology in order to protect myself from the politicized weaponized use of this branch of science, but I am certainly not a virologist.

[Drummond]

Of COURSE it's different if they come out and say so!! Have you not been paying attention? They lead by science and care for others!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh::laugh::rolleyes::rolle yes:

As funny as you find that to be, you're also correct. They do lead from scientific advice they receive. They do care for their country.

It's a pity that you don't watch the daily Covid-19 'briefings' transmitted on our TV .. it'd open your eyes, I think. Always, the forum is the same. A room where three people stand, all behind podiums .. in the centre, a Minister, telling us of any policy changes, or, reinforcing old ones, along with explanations as to why. Flanking that Minister, on each side, one scientist ... armed with all the latest data. After that, a question-and-answer session from journalists, and latterly, questions taken from members of the Public.

It's all totally and completely transparent. Everything explained, and in fully scientific fashion. Accountability is assured.

Governments, in being Governments, aren't automatically enemies, you see.

If you think that Boris is leading an 'enemy' Government ... prove it ....

[jimnyc]

I detest getting "thanks" at certain times and I delete them. Hope no one is offended if I lower my "thanks" count at times.

[Kathianne]

As funny as you find that to be, you're also correct. They do lead from scientific advice they receive. They do care for their country.

It's a pity that you don't watch the daily Covid-19 'briefings' transmitted on our TV .. it'd open your eyes, I think. Always, the forum is the same. A room where three people stand, all behind podiums .. in the centre, a Minister, telling us of any policy changes, or, reinforcing old ones, along with explanations as to why. Flanking that Minister, on each side, one scientist ... armed with all the latest data. After that, a question-and-answer session from journalists, and latterly, questions taken from members of the Public.

It's all totally and completely transparent. Everything explained, and in fully scientific fashion. Accountability is assured.

Governments, in being Governments, aren't automatically enemies, you see.

If you think that Boris is leading an 'enemy' Government ... prove it ....
Bump!

And you? When told it’s “now” time to open up? You will decide to stay home or go out. Choice.

[Drummond]

And you? When told it’s “now” time to open up? You will decide to stay home or go out. Choice.

Actually, it so happens that you're correct. But that's only because I'm retired. But if I had a job to go to, then, I'd have to travel to it.

If I was still in London, I'd be forced to use buses, trains, the Tube network, in doing that.

However, we have a caring Government. Only essential services are kept open. To the extent that people can be saved from infections through travelling, they are being.

[Drummond]

This thread is a waste of time. I have been made disposable, so no point in a single message being sent for me. I'll join in with other threads. Peace.

Sorry to see you run away from these discussions on here. It is a pity.

It'll also be a pity (sez me) if you so completely run away that you'll miss this ... an illustration of transparency and accountability from a truly, provably, caring Government.

Below is (I think it's yesterday's ?) daily Government briefing on their tackling Covid-19. Remember, we get these every single day ! I defy anyone to tell me, after seeing it, that our Government isn't doing its absolute best for its People ... and in the most efficient way imaginable !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MDuwpGaUq0

[Black Diamond]

I detest getting "thanks" at certain times and I delete them. Hope no one is offended if I lower my "thanks" count at times.

Thanking someone can sometimes be a passive aggressive gesture.

[Black Diamond]

The entire world should remain shut until the Crown says so.

[Black Diamond]

If it comes from their government, so long as conservative of course, then it's science lead and thought out and the decision to follow. But if our government makes a decision contrary, well, then they are reckless, not listening and in fact criminal. It's downright funny to see the hypocrisy.

Yeah yesterday he was essentially comparing any governor who opens too early to Osama bin laden. There was some comparison between tolerating covid and tolerating al qaeda.

[Evmetro]

Yeah yesterday he was essentially comparing any governor who opens too early to Osama bin laden. There was some comparison between tolerating covid and tolerating al qaeda.

I think Drummond prefers us to refer to it as covid84.

[Black Diamond]

Yeah yesterday he was essentially comparing any governor who opens too early to Osama bin laden. There was some comparison between tolerating covid and tolerating al qaeda.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?69818-Cancel-the-pandemic-and-lockdowns&p=959009#post959009

OK above is the link I was thinking of. The "tolerating" covid=tolerating al qaeda is there.
He doesn't compare governors to bin laden per se. But he has, in other posts, compared America to China, which may very well be worse.

[Drummond]

The entire world should remain shut until the Crown says so.

Well, if you say so !!

I'd go so far as to say that country's Governments do their peoples a disservice if they don't make science-led decisions, and in such a way as the people they're responsible for, have their welfare properly cared for.

Seems reasonable to me !!

Don't you agree ?

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?69818-Cancel-the-pandemic-and-lockdowns&p=959009#post959009

OK above is the link I was thinking of. The "tolerating" covid=tolerating al qaeda is there.
He doesn't compare governors to bin laden per se. But he has, in other posts, compared America to China, which may very well be worse.

You made a charge ... checked it ... found your charge was inaccurate, to say the least. Thank you for that. All fairness I'm shown is welcome.

The nearest I got to comparing Covid to Al Qaeda was in wondering how it was that the 3,000 who died on 9/11 are cared about so very much more than what a massive increase in infection would cause, in death tolls. To the best of my understanding, nobody's tackled this point.

Covid-19 is provably far deadlier than the 9/11 attack was. Yet, there are people who think that risking a spike in infection is a good thing, when that spike would definitely involve more than 3,000 deaths.

Perhaps you've a way of squaring that circle. I do not.

China inflicted a global pandemic on the world .. America included, of course.

Now .. I've asked whether, concurrent with a relaxation of lockdown rules, America would protect the world from an outbreak of infection .. which may, for all you know, carry with it a deadlier mutation .. and I've seen no assurance from anyone that you'd take the steps which you all think that China should've taken.

So, I'll ask again:

Once your country generates a spike in infection, will you close your borders, to stop it escaping American territory ?

If not .. WHY not ?

Perhaps you think that the world just needs to 'take its chances' ? Doesn't the title of this thread suggest that you do ?

And .. perhaps, China thought the very same ?

Or, didn't they ?

YOU tell ME.

Facts are facts, however unwelcome they may be.

[Drummond]

I think Drummond prefers us to refer to it as covid84.

You're confusing me with a certain fan of conspiracy theories, called Revelarts.

I prefer facts, accuracy ... being grounded in reality, adapting to it, dealing with it in its own terms ... things like that. That's to say, things compatible with Conservative values.

So I'm not any conspiracy fan myself.