You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
May 20 2024 7.25pm

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 11 of 268 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

 

View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Jan 23 9.00am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Won't work. If someone who is overweight takes up jogging and has a heart attack should they get priority? A person who needs shoulder surgery from gym work is more deserving of treatment than some one who doesn't work out?
The tax on cigarettes and alcohol generates over £23 billion per year and involves thousands of jobs.
The NHS is always under pressure - my wife's sister was told last month she'll have to wait 81 weeks for a gall bladder operation.

I am talking about a general approach to encourage people to avoid harmful lifestyle choices by rewarding those who do and penalising those who don't. There will always be exceptions which demand common sense judgements.

Someone who is overweight would not be likely to be recommended to take up jogging at a level to produce a heart attack before being encouraged to lose weight via a sensible diet. Heart attacks are emergencies. Emergencies are always a priority.

Revenue from any harmful behaviour is not a reason to avoid trying to reduce that behaviour. Getting people fit and active would likely produce more anyway.

That the NHS is always under pressure is no reason to accept making that pressure worse when it can, and should, be avoided.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Jan 23 9.05am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

I managed to get a fake vaccine cert (QR code) last year to go on a fab sun holiday! :-) even had a mask exemption letter I made for the airline to go maskless :-)

That you appear to be proud of this says all that needs to be said about this behaviour.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 16 Jan 23 9.08am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

The NHS should not be "off-limits [or] treated as a shrine rather than a service".

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 16 Jan 23 9.16am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am talking about a general approach to encourage people to avoid harmful lifestyle choices by rewarding those who do and penalising those who don't. There will always be exceptions which demand common sense judgements.

Someone who is overweight would not be likely to be recommended to take up jogging at a level to produce a heart attack before being encouraged to lose weight via a sensible diet. Heart attacks are emergencies. Emergencies are always a priority.

Revenue from any harmful behaviour is not a reason to avoid trying to reduce that behaviour. Getting people fit and active would likely produce more anyway.

That the NHS is always under pressure is no reason to accept making that pressure worse when it can, and should, be avoided.

Won't work. Person A gave up smoking 15 years ago so gets treatment before Person B who gave it up 10 years ago and both after Person C who's never smoked.
Using this logic why should someone with seven kids get more child support than someone with two when it was their choice to have them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 16 Jan 23 10.13am Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That you appear to be proud of this says all that needs to be said about this behaviour.

lol

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Jan 23 10.18am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Won't work. Person A gave up smoking 15 years ago so gets treatment before Person B who gave it up 10 years ago and both after Person C who's never smoked.
Using this logic why should someone with seven kids get more child support than someone with two when it was their choice to have them.

.

Sorry but I think you are being pedantic.

I am talking about general principle, the application of which will vary considerably.

Itís not just about all personal choices either. Itís about personal lifestyle choices that result in personal harm which then demands community support. Having children is not in that category.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 16 Jan 23 10.33am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

.

Sorry but I think you are being pedantic.

I am talking about general principle, the application of which will vary considerably.

Itís not just about all personal choices either. Itís about personal lifestyle choices that result in personal harm which then demands community support. Having children is not in that category.

Having lots of children does result in community support via child support payments and added pressure on the school system and is a personal choice.
If smokers pay into the NHS they're entitled to the same time constraints and treatment as everyone else.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Jan 23 7.29pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Having lots of children does result in community support via child support payments and added pressure on the school system and is a personal choice.
If smokers pay into the NHS they're entitled to the same time constraints and treatment as everyone else.

Children become contributing members of society for most of their lives, or at least the majority do. Some societies reward childbirth well, and some here want to see it increased as a way to limit immigration. So itís a net benefit, not a cost, to us.

Of course smokers are entitled to the same as non smokers. Just not more due to their indulgences.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 16 Jan 23 7.43pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Children become contributing members of society for most of their lives, or at least the majority do. Some societies reward childbirth well, and some here want to see it increased as a way to limit immigration. So itís a net benefit, not a cost, to us.

Of course smokers are entitled to the same as non smokers. Just not more due to their indulgences.

More? No one is asking for more; just not less.

I wasn't aware that peo

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 16 Jan 23 7.45pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

More? No one is asking for more; just not less.

I wasn't aware that people have lots of kids to benefit society.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jan 23 8.07am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

More? No one is asking for more; just not less.

I wasn't aware that people have lots of kids to benefit society.

If they need extra treatment due to smoking related disease then it certainly is more.

People donít have kids to benefit society anymore that they go to work themselves to do so. Itís just a fact that it does.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 17 Jan 23 8.32am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If they need extra treatment due to smoking related disease then it certainly is more.

People donít have kids to benefit society anymore that they go to work themselves to do so. Itís just a fact that it does.

Really? All those extra children don't put additional strain on the NHS? It's also a fact that smokers' net contribution to the tax system is greater than what they cost.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 11 of 268 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy