Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  14 May 23 7.25pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This was and continues to be, an evolving situation. It was found that the vaccinations did not protect against transmission of the variants, but they do against severe disease, keeping people out of hospital and allowing the NHS to function, albeit with a significant backlog. How bad it would have been without the vaccines doesn't bear thinking about. The Nightingale Hospitals proved to be largely unnecessary, for which we should be thankful, not critical as it proves the other measures taken worked. What we were told evolved too. That's nothing new, or to be ashamed of. Know-it-alls with hindsight can always claim the occasional victory. Even the blind hit the bull every so often. Not getting vaccinated is not like eating cake for the average. If you ate nothing but several kilos of cake every day it would be. Boxing, smoking or taking part in extreme sports are a reasonable analogy. For these, and for those capable of receiving the vaccines who refuse, there ought to be consequences. If they have the right to take that decision then the rest of society has the right to expect that any additional health care costs which result are taken by those making such a choice. If we were on an insurance-based health care system the premiums demanded would be higher for greater risks. Just because we aren't doesn't change the principle. If I don't want to be around the unvaccinated I have a right to know who isn't. The lockdowns reduced the strain on the NHS and enabled it to continue to provide most services. For sure there have been knock on impacts but to claim things would have been better without them, is puerile. The majority of what you state here is either a half truth, too early to actually say or just not true.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
cryrst  The garden of England 14 May 23 7.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Not when you live in a society, as we all do. Go be a hermit if you feel you only need to be concerned about yourself. We do tell smokers they cannot smoke. We exclude them from many places, including my home and the pub I use. If you drive a car you are also expected to do so responsibly and obey the rules. This ought to be no different. So smoking in your home I get but because they smoke ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 8.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
BBS mole and agitator. No substance of their own, just throwing rocks into ponds and stifling discussion. Is that aimed at me? If so you are the one throwing rocks at imaginary targets. I don't use the BBS. I have been on the Hol since its start. Using ad hominem to avoid answering points is a common tactic by one poster here, but not usually by you. If you don't agree with my arguments say why and not try to assume that the other point of view must be correct. That's stifling!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 8.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Obesity and alcolism affect the NHS in much greater numbers. They do and I would argue the same for those who make deliberate choices to ignore the advice given to them. Not though for those whose mental state results in alcoholism or are unable to eat well due to poverty. Just those who make deliberate decisions to abuse themselves. They ought to pay the additional costs that such decisions create. Again, if it was down to an insurance contract their premiums would be loaded, so why should the national insurance not be?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 8.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
So smoking in your home I get but because they smoke ? They ought to pay an extra charge on their NI, to cover the amount that their decision costs in the above-average burden on the NHS. When it is known that smoking causes lung cancer and emphysema, and is avoidable, then it is reasonable that the cost be passed on. We tax tobacco heavily but, so far as I know, that is not directed to the NHS. I would be content if we did and strongly publicised it. The purpose is to discourage it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 8.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The majority of what you state here is either a half truth, too early to actually say or just not true. There is always more to learn in any evolving situation, but as it seems the worst of the Covid pandemic is behind us now and we are managing that which remains, it's becoming ever clearer what the true picture has been. I don't expect my analysis will be shown to be far off the mark when the enquiry is complete. Whether they recommend anything similar to my ideas for a future pandemic remains to be seen. They ought to, but as it would be heavily resisted by those affected there may not be the political will to do what is actually in our ultimate best interests. Meanwhile, I haven't seen your comment on Dr Dan Wilson's takedown of Russell Brand. Too accurate? Too painful to realise how you have been duped? Too embarrassing?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 May 23 9.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They do and I would argue the same for those who make deliberate choices to ignore the advice given to them. Not though for those whose mental state results in alcoholism or are unable to eat well due to poverty. Just those who make deliberate decisions to abuse themselves. They ought to pay the additional costs that such decisions create. Again, if it was down to an insurance contract their premiums would be loaded, so why should the national insurance not be? Authoritarian and statist.....shows your social liberalism for what it is as when its outcomes might affect you suddenly you turn. For example, what about the rise in STD treatments that we have in the NHS. Should those people be punished for living a sexually consequence free lifestyle which your social liberal doctrine promotes? Anyway, going back to the main silliness, not all drunks or fatties are the same old bean. Both alcohol and obesity can have heredity components to them. Your idea is unworkable, once anyone applies any serious thought to it. That's the reason it has never come into practice, even in far more socially conservative times.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 May 23 9.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
There is always more to learn in any evolving situation, but as it seems the worst of the Covid pandemic is behind us now and we are managing that which remains, it's becoming ever clearer what the true picture has been. I don't expect my analysis will be shown to be far off the mark when the enquiry is complete. Whether they recommend anything similar to my ideas for a future pandemic remains to be seen. They ought to, but as it would be heavily resisted by those affected there may not be the political will to do what is actually in our ultimate best interests. Meanwhile, I haven't seen your comment on Dr Dan Wilson's takedown of Russell Brand. Too accurate? Too painful to realise how you have been duped? Too embarrassing? I'm not watching your crap. If you want you can tell me what these significant points are, otherwise you are just waffling. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 May 2023 9.15pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 9.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Authoritarian and statist.....shows your social liberalism for what it is as when its outcomes might affect you suddenly you turn. For example, what about the rise in STD treatments that we have in the NHS. Should those people be punished for living a sexually consequence free lifestyle which your social liberal doctrine promotes? Anyway, going back to the main silliness, not all drunks or fatties are the same old bean. Both alcohol and obesity can have heredity components to them. Your idea is unworkable, once anyone applies any serious thought to it. That's the reason it has never come into practice, even in far more socially conservative times.
I hadn't considered charging those who contract STDs for their lifestyle choice, but the same general principle applies. Although an exception would probably be made because of the negative impact on self-referral, which would not be in our common interest. Anyone who has a genetic predisposition to obesity hasn't made a lifestyle choice, so would be excluded. They deserve help. I am unaware of a hereditary disposition to alcohol. If true, which seems unlikely, so too would they be as would the low IQ and mentally ill. I thought I made that clear, but perhaps you missed it. The intention is entirely to put pressure on those who can but don't, to think again because it directly impacts them. I agree it's unlikely to ever be enacted, but not because it isn't sensible. Only because it would be politically unpopular. I hope I am wrong and a variable rate of NI is introduced at some time in the future based on the information held by the NHS. It need not be dramatic. Just sufficient to make people think and change.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 May 23 9.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm not watching your crap. If you want you can tell me what these significant points are, otherwise you are just waffling. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 May 2023 9.15pm) You expect me to watch crap, and Dr Watson has too. The Brand video is used in his. Essentially he completely destroys the way Brand uses the statistics and points out that his conclusions are 100% inaccurate. You really need to watch it, as it's a very, very long way from being crap. I would say it's unarguable.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 May 23 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I hadn't considered charging those who contract STDs for their lifestyle choice, but the same general principle applies. Although an exception would probably be made because of the negative impact on self-referral, which would not be in our common interest. Anyone who has a genetic predisposition to obesity hasn't made a lifestyle choice, so would be excluded. They deserve help. I am unaware of a hereditary disposition to alcohol. If true, which seems unlikely, so too would they be as would the low IQ and mentally ill. I thought I made that clear, but perhaps you missed it. The intention is entirely to put pressure on those who can but don't, to think again because it directly impacts them. I agree it's unlikely to ever be enacted, but not because it isn't sensible. Only because it would be politically unpopular. I hope I am wrong and a variable rate of NI is introduced at some time in the future based on the information held by the NHS. It need not be dramatic. Just sufficient to make people think and change. You can't on the one hand promote a socially liberal lifestyle as all choices are equal in worth and then later on say actually catching those STDs is going to cost you. No, the reason it wouldn't be enacted is because you have just excluded the vast number of people from it....for half valid reasons I might add. Even so the investigative process involved in finding that out would end up costing more with the result that very few people would actually be denied treatment and the ones that did would die sooner....So, you end up costing more and killing a very small number sooner. Social Darwinism much? Anymore silly ideas?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 May 23 9.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You expect me to watch crap, and Dr Watson has too. The Brand video is used in his. Essentially he completely destroys the way Brand uses the statistics and points out that his conclusions are 100% inaccurate. You really need to watch it, as it's a very, very long way from being crap. I would say it's unarguable. What statistics and what conclusions?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.