They introduced it while cases were going down in the hope of stopping Omicron
It can't be stopped - why do these idiot governments think that it can?
They introduced it while cases were going down in the hope of stopping Omicron
I take a very similar view. I took three doses of vaccine because I felt, in my circumstances, it was the sensible thing to do. I do, however think that vaccine passports are wrong and thus have missed two football matches already I would otherwise have attended and feel nervous of travelling on public transport or even going to the shops as I am unable to safely wear a face covering.This view won't be shared with everyone, but there comes a point where fun/freedom is drained out of society to the point that death might actually be preferable. I'm personally not afraid of covid as someone of low risk and 3x jabbed, but there is a long list of things I am afraid of that are resulting and might result from our covid attitude.
It can't be stopped - why do these idiot governments think that it can?
We do seem to be very much in the territory of having taken a wrong turn and keeping driving on either in the hope that a saviour will appear or (perhaps more likely) because it’s too politically awkward to admit to having taken a wrong turn.
It could certainly be viewed as the most extreme 'sunken costs' fallacy in our lifetimes (world war I was probably the only comparable previous example).
As you say, there have been a number of occasions where we could have quietly let it go and moved on to other things. If we don't manage to do it now, with Omicron which seems a very fortunate gift in so many ways, then I fail to see how we ever will. Even more clearly it would be highly obvious that those in charge don't *want* it to ever end.
The next couple of months will be... interesting.
I agree with all that you say but the last sentence leaves me confused. I (heart) NY ?I sense that the Conservative party is possibly the nearest thing we have to wanting to move on. The snag is that, despite the bluster, I’m not sure the leadership (specifically Johnson) are quite so committed - which seems to be for the simple reason that he’s frit of leaving office with a toxic stigma along similar lines to what Blair has managed to pick up. And, unlike Blair who will at least manage to articulate a half-decent case for why he thought Iraq was the right thing to do at the time, Johnson simply doesn’t have that intellect, nor is he sufficiently bothered to want to be in the position of having to attempt it. Hence hiding behind the shield of “follow the science”.
Labour’s position is even more bewildering, of course. Sturgeon / Drakeford are meanwhile in full-on blind alley territory — their current policies are producing demonstrably worse outcomes than England, yet the answer to that is apparently to keep doing more of it, and yet it’s all somehow still England’s fault!
It’s pretty high stakes to have spent billions on billions of pounds on these measures, completely upturned elements of the societal structure of the country, screwed over many businesses and their employees, caused significant inflation and probably stagflation, as well as the small matter of locking people in hotels, fining them for walking their dogs and stopping them doing most enjoyable elements of life for lengthy periods. Of course, it’s been made too easy for politicians to justify all this, because of the way sufficient numbers of people go misty-eyed at the mention of three letters of the alphabet and a love-heart symbol.
I sense that the Conservative party is possibly the nearest thing we have to wanting to move on. The snag is that, despite the bluster, I’m not sure the leadership (specifically Johnson) are quite so committed - which seems to be for the simple reason that he’s frit of leaving office with a toxic stigma along similar lines to what Blair has managed to pick up. And, unlike Blair who will at least manage to articulate a half-decent case for why he thought Iraq was the right thing to do at the time, Johnson simply doesn’t have that intellect, nor is he sufficiently bothered to want to be in the position of having to attempt it. Hence hiding behind the shield of “follow the science”.
It’s pretty high stakes to have spent billions on billions of pounds on these measures, completely upturned elements of the societal structure of the country, screwed over many businesses and their employees, caused significant inflation and probably stagflation, as well as the small matter of locking people in hotels, fining them for walking their dogs and stopping them doing most enjoyable elements of life for lengthy periods.
The court ruled that where local authorities wish to require masks outdoors, they must meet three requirements:
- The area where they are to be required must be limited to an area with large numbers of people where social-distancing is impossible (although quieter adjoining areas can be included if necessary to ensure the area covered is easy to understand)
- The requirement must only apply during the times of day when the area is busy
- Any requirement can only apply if the local infection rates justify it.
Which increasingly day by day, seems they do not, well not as first stated anyway, I see the U.S is now recommending N95 / KN95 masks, and not to use cloth masks anymore, although I think that suggestion has gone down like a lead brick, and provoking more not to bother at all.Its a pity they couldn't add a fourth:
4. Proof that they work!
We can't bring sense into these sort of arguments.It is all complete nonsense but the one that really befuddles me is closing shops at 5pm - Surely you would want to give shops more hours to reduce the risk of overcrowding?
Still sounds like a lockdown in all but name to me!So the Netherland has today come out of Lockdown with more cases than it had when it started and another daft set of rules that I am sure will be as effective as the last.
Bars , Restaurants , Theatres and Museums closed
Shops can open - but only until 5pm.
Face mask rules tightened - Should not now use cloth ones
Rules on social contact remain (e.g. no more than 4 people / 1 household per day)
And of course all the hits of Social Distancing and Vaxxports remain in effect.
Not forgetting of course quarantine for international arrivals (with exceptions).Bars , Restaurants , Theatres and Museums closed
Shops can open - but only until 5pm.
Face mask rules tightened - Should not now use cloth ones
Rules on social contact remain (e.g. no more than 4 people / 1 household per day)
And of course all the hits of Social Distancing and Vaxxports remain in effect.
So the Netherland has today come out of Lockdown with more cases than it had when it started and another daft set of rules that I am sure will be as effective as the last.
Bars , Restaurants , Theatres and Museums closed
Shops can open - but only until 5pm.
Face mask rules tightened - Should not now use cloth ones
Rules on social contact remain (e.g. no more than 4 people / 1 household per day)
And of course all the hits of Social Distancing and Vaxxports remain in effect.
It is all complete nonsense but the one that really befuddles me is closing shops at 5pm - Surely you would want to give shops more hours to reduce the risk of overcrowding?
Interestingly there are also some signs that the public mood is souring - lots of protests apparently in recent weeks.
We can't bring sense into these sort of arguments.
It's about making a sacrifice.
Sounds very like what applied between about June 15th and July 3rd 2020 here. I can't remember at what stage they stopped calling it a lockdown though. Perhaps when the shops opened, which would be analagous to the Netherlands now,Still sounds like a lockdown in all but name to me!
MARK
The trailed changes in France have finally passed Parliament and are slated to take effect from Thursday. In summary, those aged 16+ will no longer be able to use negative tests to enter restaurants, bars, cinemas, or large venues and will need a vaccine or recovery pass. For those over 18 years and 1 month, a booster is necessary if the 2nd dose was over 7 months ago. From 15 February the 7 months drop to 4.
France has an election this year so we will see in the coming months what the people think of the rules.The latest entry in the ever-expanding 'it's not (anymore) about stopping the spread of a virus' list.
Else why prevent people who we *know* don't have the virus as they have a recent negative test, but allow people who may well have the virus (as effectiveness of the vaccines is now effectively nil in stopping infection or transmission).
France has an election this year so we will see in the coming months what the people think of the rules.
France has an election this year so we will see in the coming months what the people think of the rules.
The problem with asking the people is that, after two years of constant propaganda and lies, they may not be making rational decisions.
Consider this rather terrifying poll of Democrat voters in the USA:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...rsh_measures_against_unvaccinated?aff_id=1262
- 55% support fines for those unvaccinated.
- 59% support lockdown for the unvaccinated 'at all times, except in emergencies'
- 48% think there should be fines or prison (!) for those that question the efficacy of the vaccines in the media or on the internet
-
- 47% think the unvaccinated should be digitally tracked by the government
- 29% think the unvaccinated should have their children taken away from them
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear example of what two years of constant propaganda and lies can do to a significant part of the population.
The problem with asking the people is that, after two years of constant propaganda and lies, they may not be making rational decisions.
Consider this rather terrifying poll of Democrat voters in the USA:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...rsh_measures_against_unvaccinated?aff_id=1262
- 55% support fines for those unvaccinated.
- 59% support lockdown for the unvaccinated 'at all times, except in emergencies'
- 48% think there should be fines or prison (!) for those that question the efficacy of the vaccines in the media or on the internet
- 45% would support proposals for the unvaccinated to be forced to 'temporarily' live in a 'designated facility or location'
- 47% think the unvaccinated should be digitally tracked by the government
- 29% think the unvaccinated should have their children taken away from them
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear example of what two years of constant propaganda and lies can do to a significant part of the population.
That's Democrat voters? If this poll is true: I thought they were supposed to be MOR in outlook. That sounds like the sort of reactionary nonsense that I would expect more from the more militant Trump voters.
Given that many (not all) Trump voters have some wacky ideas, and this poll, if true, suggests that many (not all) Democrat voters also have some wacky ideas, this points to a dangerous spread of extremism in the USA. Please let the poll above be biased reporting from a pro-Republican source rather than the truth.
It's Rasmussen, who are somewhat considered to have somewhat of a Republican bias, though I'm not sufficiently familiar with them to determine whether those accusations are true or not.
The same problem is here though, if not quite so wacky. Where does someone who wants all Covid restrictions removed but also objects to the Policing bill, the new Immigration Act and the 'Online Harms' bill go politically?
That poll seems heavily skewed towards the assumption that these types of measures will "limit the spread", when in reality they really don't.The problem with asking the people is that, after two years of constant propaganda and lies, they may not be making rational decisions.
Consider this rather terrifying poll of Democrat voters in the USA:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...rsh_measures_against_unvaccinated?aff_id=1262
- 55% support fines for those unvaccinated.
- 59% support lockdown for the unvaccinated 'at all times, except in emergencies'
- 48% think there should be fines or prison (!) for those that question the efficacy of the vaccines in the media or on the internet
- 45% would support proposals for the unvaccinated to be forced to 'temporarily' live in a 'designated facility or location'
- 47% think the unvaccinated should be digitally tracked by the government
- 29% think the unvaccinated should have their children taken away from them
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear example of what two years of constant propaganda and lies can do to a significant part of the population.
What's the 'new' Immigration Act incidentally? Is that the same one from a couple of years back which removed automatic residence rights for EU citizens, or something else?