You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (330 Mbps)
Posts: 27,725
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
i don't see the government permitting drink driving?
I dont really see how its relevant.
However, Drink Driving *is* permitted, up to a certain limit.
For the record, the limit only applies to public roads/places as well.
I dont really see how its relevant.
However, Drink Driving *is* permitted, up to a certain limit.
For the record, the limit only applies to public roads/places as well.
I obviously made my point badly & yes, you're quite right.
__________________
Nerves of steel, heart of gold, knob of butter......
I obviously made my point badly & yes, you're quite right.
I thought you meant to imply the Government regularly legislates in the collective interest, as individuals cannot necessarily be trusted to make judgement calls on their personal risk or risks to others.
The drink drive limit is an arbitrary threshold that does exactly this due to the risk drivers pose to other road users, pedestrians and adjacent property to the roads. Just like the risk those carrying Covid could pose to others who happen to share the same spaces. This is the crux of self isolation policies implemented around the world for those who have tested positive and, prior to vaccination, their household contacts due to the high prevalence of within household transmission.
For those who oppose state intervention for entirely ideological reasons (and not weighing up public health) pointing this out seems an entirely credible position to take in a debate.
I thought you meant to imply the Government regularly legislates in the collective interest, as individuals cannot necessarily be trusted to make judgement calls on their personal risk or risks to others.
The drink drive limit is an arbitrary threshold that does exactly this due to the risk drivers pose to other road users, pedestrians and adjacent property to the roads. Just like the risk those carrying Covid could pose to others who happen to share the same spaces. This is the crux of self isolation policies implemented around the world for those who have tested positive and, prior to vaccination, their household contacts due to the high prevalence of within household transmission.
For those who oppose state intervention for entirely ideological reasons (and not weighing up public health) pointing this out seems an entirely credible position to take in a debate.
The context of this particular aspect of the discussion was lost several pages ago.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
I’m one minute in and so far I can tell Covid is on the up in almost all age groups, and almost all regions. Is there good news in there?
I think people will certainly be careful, and take personal responsibility by keeping their money in their pockets this December until there is some clarity.
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I’m one minute in and so far I can tell Covid is on the up in almost all age groups, and almost all regions. Is there good news in there?
I think people will certainly be careful, and take personal responsibility by keeping their money in their pockets this December until there is some clarity.
I'm splurging - and looking by the numbers in John Lewis (High Wycombe) and Waitrose (Wokingham), the good burgerS in my area may be doing likewise.
Awww mate, I didn’t have you down as a vulnerable adult. I will adjust accordingly.
Just make sure you have a responsible person with you when posting.
Once again, like in so many of your judgments, you would be mistaken…
Also, I doubt very much, with your solipsistic outlook, you would adjust for anything or anyone unless it benefited you…
---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I certainly don’t agree with enforced inoculations!
I think most people understand what I mean when I say the scientists want to control us. They have frightened a portion of the public senseless, offered up wildly inflated future scenarios and come at us continually demanding more action restricting our freedoms. How can you not understand this?
Why do the scientists want to control us?
---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
OK, is this better?
‘ Old Boy there’s no reasoning with someone who thinks Covid 19 is a communist plot to keep people in lockdown.’
I didn’t say that. Another twist. I said Communists like to control people.
‘I told you it wouldn’t go away in the summer. It didn’t.’
The variant we were dealing with then did, actually. It was a new variant that changed the infection rate.
‘I told you variants would reduce vaccine efficacy. It did.’
It was always obvious that mutations could do this, and I warned about that ages ago. However, you only really know what the impact of any new mutation is when it happens. The problem with the latest variant from SA is that the scientists are leaping into control freakery before they actually know we have a problem. You seem blind to the fact that we cannot go on like this, year after year.
‘I said there was no evidence it would become less virulent. There isn’t.’
True. No evidence it will be more so, either. However, thus far, SA infections are not leading to increased hospitalisations over other variants, so we will have to see if that changes.
‘How do you propose to recover the economy when rational actors in the economy stay home - at least some of the time - so they don’t get sick?’
I should imagine that the vast majority will carry on as they do now, going into work. Of course if the government continue to enforce isolation a la pingdemic, it goes without saying we will have a problem, but that is not what I am advocating.
‘What proposals do you have to support those businesses your heart bled so much for when they could rely on furlough and other support measures to get them through Christmas? They can’t live on entrepreneurial spirit’
Except that I am not advocating enforced isolation. You are.
A question for you, however. When we have totally ruined the economy and we are all reduced to poverty, how do you propose the NHS will be funded? You’re the economist, apparently. Knock yourself out.
As for your last comment, people should be going to work, not staying at home unless legally required to do so. And I do not believe there is any necessity to impose such a requirement at present.
You are advocating enforced isolation for 3.7 million people.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
I see shield the vulnerable is now stuff the vulnerable. I’m not sure how we can force 60 million people into isolation given many of them live together, and mixing was permitted at various stages of restrictions with some mitigations - e.g. distancing.
How does your economy look without their purchasing power within it?
Quote:
Because they can.
The communists want to control us, now it’s the scientists.
The irony is that it is you, Old Boy, wanting to restrict freedoms of others for the sake of ideology. Force people to work regardless of whether it’s safe. Force people to commute. Force people into bars and cafes to keep them viable.
All fundamentally because, I suspect in your head, you plan to stay in for a few months until it blew over. So the sooner others got on with it the better.
I see shield the vulnerable is now stuff the vulnerable. I’m not sure how we can force 60 million people into isolation given many of them live together, and mixing was permitted at various stages of restrictions with some mitigations - e.g. distancing.
How does your economy look without their purchasing power within it?
.
No, it’s shield the vulnerable. What are lockdowns - your solution - if not isolation?
Lockdowns will not eliminate the virus - although you don’t seem to understand this point.
---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
The communists want to control us, now it’s the scientists.
The irony is that it is you, Old Boy, wanting to restrict freedoms of others for the sake of ideology. Force people to work regardless of whether it’s safe. Force people to commute. Force people into bars and cafes to keep them viable.
All fundamentally because, I suspect in your head, you plan to stay in for a few months until it blew over. So the sooner others got on with it the better.
The scientists have been trying to control our actions and what we can and cannot do since Covid arrived, and now it’s become a habitual knee-jerk response to everything. Some are making no secret of the fact they want to see mask wearing and social distancing forever more.
And what do you mean by ‘ I suspect in your head, you plan to stay in for a few months until it blew over’? Where does that come from? Nobody stops me from going out, sunshine.
Join CF
You are here: 
Baby, I was born this way.
