The Professor says it will be safe....

[Dunwaters]

I don't mean to be picky but so far as I recall no-one said or assured us that : -

1. Kids couldn't catch Covid - It was said that the kids were at less risk of serious illness than older or vulnerable adults.
2. Kids couldn't carry (by this I assume you mean transmit) Covid - It was said that the extent of transmission from kids carrying the virus was uncertain.
3. The vaccination programme would prevent us from catching the virus but would greatly lessen the chance of dying from it.

As to the lockdowns: -
(i) I personally believe that if everyone (and I mean everyone in view of the infection rate of the virus) had obeyed the lockdown regulations/advice then the number of Covid cases/deaths would have
been substantially reduced.
(ii) Given (ii) above, how would you suggest the authorities dealt with breaches of the lockdown regulations?
(iii) What the hell did protesters think would be achieved by breaking the lockdown regulations - wouldn't they appreciate or see the reason for the regulations and what the result of their breach could
be or didn't they just care about themselves or others - perhaps most were relatively young and thought the virus would not affect them severely.

A number on this forum (and elsewhere of course) find it so easy (especially with the benefit of hindsight) to criticize the steps which have been taken to try to cope with this virus - why cannot we have some positive suggestions as to what you (and other critics) think should and can be achieved to deal with it.
It appears from the tone of many of the critics that they think they could all have done better in the circumstances and if this is the case then please let's share their proposals.

Rant over.

In Ireland were assured last September that there was no danger of a Covid surge associated with re-opening of the schools because there was no evidence that kids could catch or transmit the infection, so it was safe for the schools but unsafe for the colleges, which stayed closed and relied on remote learning.
As for the protestors, we have, or at least we had a right to protest enshrined as part of our democratic values, but the only way you could protest the lockdown restrictions was to get out on the streets and break them, which was of course illegal. So if you didn’t like being kept under house arrest you were going to arrested and punished for demonstrating your opposition to enforced isolation.Catch 22 in action.
And it wasn’t just people who “ didn’t care about themselves or others” there were quite a few of us questioning the requirement for and legal status of the lockdowns and we weren’t getting any answers, we still aren’t.
If you want to stay socially isolated until you personally feel that its safe to emerge, that’s fine, do so with my blessing, but not everyone feels the same way and you may not impose your idea of what’s safe onto the rest of us.
Stay safe by all means,but if you're vaccinated already then this is as safe as its going to get for the rest of your life, so I have decided to resume normal operations, your decision may differ and welcome to it, but dont expect the rest of the population to follow suite and dont expect me to quietly submit to further government restrictions, tried it and don't like it one little bit.

 

[John Gryphon]

as an aside here is an example of how the antis work

Welcome to our live Covid coverage.
Claims by anti-vax conspiracy theorists over a Sydney teenager's death have been refuted with the year 12 student’s school confirming he died while swimming - not from a vaccine.

Tom Van Dijk died after a cardiac arrest while swimming with his family. He had complained of chest pains and was transported by ambulance to Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital. The doctors there were unable to save him.

His tragic death was seized upon by Virginia Nicholls who posted on her Twitter that he had died after ‘receiving the Pfizer jab at the mass vaccination clinic at Homebush.’

This is not true. But the misinformation spread like wildfire amongst conspiracy theorists.

Tom’s school was forced to issue a statement to set the record straight.

“Despite the clear communication from the College, there have been many insensitive and grossly inaccurate reports on social media. The College and Tom’s family wish to make it very clear that: Tom was not vaccinated… Tom had a negative Covid-19 test at the hospital,” it said.

Follow our live coverage below.

 

[Fair Hill]

In Ireland were assured last September that there was no danger of a Covid surge associated with re-opening of the schools because there was no evidence that kids could catch or transmit the infection, so it was safe for the schools but unsafe for the colleges, which stayed closed and relied on remote learning.
As for the protestors, we have, or at least we had a right to protest enshrined as part of our democratic values, but the only way you could protest the lockdown restrictions was to get out on the streets and break them, which was of course illegal. So if you didn’t like being kept under house arrest you were going to arrested and punished for demonstrating your opposition to enforced isolation.Catch 22 in action.
And it wasn’t just people who “ didn’t care about themselves or others” there were quite a few of us questioning the requirement for and legal status of the lockdowns and we weren’t getting any answers, we still aren’t.
If you want to stay socially isolated until you personally feel that its safe to emerge, that’s fine, do so with my blessing, but not everyone feels the same way and you may not impose your idea of what’s safe onto the rest of us.
Stay safe by all means,but if you're vaccinated already then this is as safe as its going to get for the rest of your life, so I have decided to resume normal operations, your decision may differ and welcome to it, but dont expect the rest of the population to follow suite and dont expect me to quietly submit to further government restrictions, tried it and don't like it one little bit.

You wouldn't mind throwing up an ol' link there to verify this statement would ya?

 

[Dunwaters]

You wouldn't mind throwing up an ol' link there to verify this statement would ya?

Sorry my IT skills aren’t up to that but the education minister made a couple of statements to reassure the teachers unions, particularly the primary sector.

 

[Fair Hill]

Sorry my IT skills aren’t up to that but the education minister made a couple of statements to reassure the teachers unions, particularly the primary sector.

What you stated was untrue, Norma Foley nor any other Irish Minister ever made such a statement and you know it.

 

[kripton]

In Ireland were assured last September that there was no danger of a Covid surge associated with re-opening of the schools because there was no evidence that kids could catch or transmit the infection, so it was safe for the schools but unsafe for the colleges, which stayed closed and relied on remote learning.
As for the protestors, we have, or at least we had a right to protest enshrined as part of our democratic values, but the only way you could protest the lockdown restrictions was to get out on the streets and break them, which was of course illegal. So if you didn’t like being kept under house arrest you were going to arrested and punished for demonstrating your opposition to enforced isolation.Catch 22 in action.
And it wasn’t just people who “ didn’t care about themselves or others” there were quite a few of us questioning the requirement for and legal status of the lockdowns and we weren’t getting any answers, we still aren’t.
If you want to stay socially isolated until you personally feel that its safe to emerge, that’s fine, do so with my blessing, but not everyone feels the same way and you may not impose your idea of what’s safe onto the rest of us.
Stay safe by all means,but if you're vaccinated already then this is as safe as its going to get for the rest of your life, so I have decided to resume normal operations, your decision may differ and welcome to it, but dont expect the rest of the population to follow suite and dont expect me to quietly submit to further government restrictions, tried it and don't like it one little bit.

OK I understand that you will do whatever you want - no-one likes the restrictions but apart from the risk of infecting others by selfishly ignoring the Covid regulations can you make any positive suggestions that might assist in dealing with the virus?
Protesters were not punished for demonstrating opposition to enforced isolation - they were punished for breaking the law (and by this I mean the Regulations)
On what basis did you question the requirement and legal status of the lockdowns - bearing in mind that this virus was new and "untried" what alternatives would you recommend and what reasons do you have for going against the medical advice which resulted in the lockdowns - do you know better perhaps?
If the government imposes lawful restrictions why should I and others not expect you to "submit" to them and why should anyone be surprised if you are then punished for breaking the law
You use emotive words such as "house arrest" and "quietly submit(ting) to further government restrictions" which is something the media practice when attempting to escalate a situation in their version of the "news" so as to sell more of their papers or attract higher viewing figures. Virtually all on this forum are aware of the results of such reports so far as firearms are concerned.
What has happened to accurate and impartial reporting?

 

[308tikka]

I don't mean to be picky but so far as I recall no-one said or assured us that : -

1. Kids couldn't catch Covid - It was said that the kids were at less risk of serious illness than older or vulnerable adults.
2. Kids couldn't carry (by this I assume you mean transmit) Covid - It was said that the extent of transmission from kids carrying the virus was uncertain.
3. The vaccination programme would prevent us from catching the virus but would greatly lessen the chance of dying from it.

As to the lockdowns: -
(i) I personally believe that if everyone (and I mean everyone in view of the infection rate of the virus) had obeyed the lockdown regulations/advice then the number of Covid cases/deaths would have
been substantially reduced.
(ii) Given (ii) above, how would you suggest the authorities dealt with breaches of the lockdown regulations?
(iii) What the hell did protesters think would be achieved by breaking the lockdown regulations - wouldn't they appreciate or see the reason for the regulations and what the result of their breach could
be or didn't they just care about themselves or others - perhaps most were relatively young and thought the virus would not affect them severely.

A number on this forum (and elsewhere of course) find it so easy (especially with the benefit of hindsight) to criticize the steps which have been taken to try to cope with this virus - why cannot we have some positive suggestions as to what you (and other critics) think should and can be achieved to deal with it.
It appears from the tone of many of the critics that they think they could all have done better in the circumstances and if this is the case then please let's share their proposals.

Rant over.

Except some of us were saying at the time and not with hindsight.

What would appear to have a greater effect would be to follow WHO guidelines from 2019 which were promptly dropped and ignored once China started their own lockdowns (and welding peoples doors shut in the process).

I fear NZ will have a very bad time (as they havent used the opportunity to vaccinate enough) and they get really nasty variants against a population which hasnt had exposure and very few deaths in the demographics likely to succumb to it.

Herd immunity through vaccination, or exposure to the virus to create the antibodies, is going to happen sooner or later and not very much can be done to prevent it, and delay can make things a lot worse. It has the unfortunate process of taking the weak herd members first.

what is completely legitimate to criticise are ridiculous models, the flip flopping of policy and the absolute farce of different regulation in different jurisdictions, and the absolute glee of those with an authoritarian streak in them. Then compounded by the likes of Cummings, Hancock and Ferguson who think the rules only apply to the little people. The electorate arent stupid-they can smell hypocrisy a mile off-thats why there will be people quite willing to decline jabs in the face of any of the threats, explicit or inferred!

 

[25 Sharps]

They’ll shift the goal post once you get close to the target figure, we were promised that the restrictions would be lifted once we got above 70%, currently we’re above 82% and now they say that we need everyone vaccinated….
Even the kids that last year we were assured couldn’t catch or carry Covid.
Its a never ending exercise in manipulation and control backed up by state sanctioned violence if you protest, but someone as smart as you has already worked this out surely, you’ve been through more than enough lockdowns to know that they dont work.

We were never assured kids couldn’t catch it or carry it, just that they were unlikely to get ill from it.

What papers have you been reading!?

 

[308tikka]

If the government imposes lawful restrictions why should I and others not expect you to "submit" to them and why should anyone be surprised if you are then punished for breaking the law
....

Because governments often break the law. Government does not ‘impose’ on the people. The people are sovereign, and they wlect a parliament. This is our political settlement, copied to a similar degree throughout many English speaking countries.
Consent was not given, there was no mandate to destroy hard won civil liberties.

Virtually all on this forum are aware of the results of such reports so far as firearms are concerned.
What has happened to accurate and impartial reporting?

And most people on this site err on the side of libertarianism/freedom for responsible firearms ownership, but when it comes to other issues especially Covid it is very easy to imagine SOME of the same people willingly pulling on a brownshirt and rounding up their fellow citizens!

 

[JockStalk]

it is very easy to imagine SOME of the same people willingly pulling on a brownshirt and rounding up their fellow citizens!

So you’ve been to jockistan recently then I gather?

 

[308tikka]

So you’ve been to jockistan recently then I gather?

Ive been to a few ‘xxx-istans’. Not many of those refugees are battering down the door to live in Wee Jimmy Krankie’s socialist/watermelon green paradise. Possibly the first real warning sign was creation of a unified Police Scotland.

I quite liked Aberdeen though when I lived there.

 

[kripton]

Because governments often break the law. Government does not ‘impose’ on the people. The people are sovereign, and they wlect a parliament. This is our political settlement, copied to a similar degree throughout many English speaking countries.
Consent was not given, there was no mandate to destroy hard won civil liberties.

And most people on this site err on the side of libertarianism/freedom for responsible firearms ownership, but when it comes to other issues especially Covid it is very easy to imagine SOME of the same people willingly pulling on a brownshirt and rounding up their fellow citizens!

In England and Wales (I have little or no knowledge of Scottish law) the government (by this I mean parliament) elected by the people create ("impose"?) statutes which become the law when the Queen gives her Royal assent. I quite agree that when individual members of parliament (please note that they themselves are not the government) break the law they should be dealt with in precisely the same way as other citizens and should perhaps be more stringently monitored because of their higher public profile. This however has no bearing on whether you or I should follow suit - just because someone puts else their finger in the fire it doesn't mean that we should do likewise.

 

[25 Sharps]

And Poms.

Isn’t that how you started out?

 

[308tikka]

No, I meant literally governments break the law. People take them to court all the time and win. Human rights being just one example but once signed up to binding international treaties governments cannot just do what they want even if parliament has a majority.

Unless they wish to leave those treaties......

Generally theres a presumption that consent, is required, today articulated in a general election for constitutional changes or gross reduction in individual liberty. This can be traced to the Magna Carta so its nothing new... many argue that government has crossed this line with covid edicts-not to mention the well reported but now largely forgotten cases of the police ordering people inside their homes from their garden, or inspecting their shopping baskets for essential items.

Jog on percy!

 

[kripton]

No, I meant literally governments break the law. People take them to court all the time and win. Human rights being just one example but once signed up to binding international treaties governments cannot just do what they want even if parliament has a majority.

Unless they wish to leave those treaties......

Generally theres a presumption that consent, is required, today articulated in a general election for constitutional changes or gross reduction in individual liberty. This can be traced to the Magna Carta so its nothing new... many argue that government has crossed this line with covid edicts-not to mention the well reported but now largely forgotten cases of the police ordering people inside their homes from their garden, or inspecting their shopping baskets for essential items.

Jog on percy!

Yes I agree with much of what you say in this post and am grateful that we have an independent judiciary who can hold the government to book - however I have never liked the European Court of Justice being the final arbiter as was the case before Brexit.

 

[John Gryphon]

Isn’t that how you started out?

No we started off with the Aboriginals.

 

[25 Sharps]

No we started off with the Aboriginals.

Australia as a nation?

I thought you imported poms (amongst others) and then hunted the aboriginals….

 

[25 Sharps]

No, I meant literally governments break the law. People take them to court all the time and win. Human rights being just one example but once signed up to binding international treaties governments cannot just do what they want even if parliament has a majority.

Unless they wish to leave those treaties......

Generally theres a presumption that consent, is required, today articulated in a general election for constitutional changes or gross reduction in individual liberty. This can be traced to the Magna Carta so its nothing new... many argue that government has crossed this line with covid edicts-not to mention the well reported but now largely forgotten cases of the police ordering people inside their homes from their garden, or inspecting their shopping baskets for essential items.

Jog on percy!

And then having to publicly clarify that they had overstepped the mark?

 

[John Gryphon]

What has this to do with covid?