FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > A weird future...
A weird future...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
If, as could be the case, this virus infects human life with different iterations, strains and special forces name designations for infinitum, like the flu does, what would YOU like to do?
Put your hands up and say "fuck it, open everything up, back to normal, no more lockdowns, no restrictions, whoever gets it, gets it... Sorry!"
Or...
Put your hands up and say "fuck it, it's here to stay, close everything down, keep the restrictions, lockdowns are needed, maybe masks should be a permanent feature, I'll do whatever I need to save even just one life... Sorry!" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think that if it ends up like flu, that's how it will be treated.
In fact, judging by previous pandemics, things just return to normal after a while. This might be 2 or 3 years, but it does happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ubElleWoman
over a year ago
milton keynes |
Is there no middle ground?
Things open; but mask wearing, sanitising etc more common perhaps. Keep some form of isolation and contact tracing for positive cases perhaps. Annual update/boosters like with flu/RSV jabs.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ubElleWoman
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I think that if it ends up like flu, that's how it will be treated.
In fact, judging by previous pandemics, things just return to normal after a while. This might be 2 or 3 years, but it does happen. "
I suspect (hope?) this is where we will go. Seasonal flu kills people but we have vaccination programmes and just accept it as part of life. When covid gets to those levels we’ll just have to live with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is there no middle ground?
Things open; but mask wearing, sanitising etc more common perhaps. Keep some form of isolation and contact tracing for positive cases perhaps. Annual update/boosters like with flu/RSV jabs.
"
Yup. No false dichotomies here.
Sensible and proportionate protective measures: bring levels down where possible, restrictions to stop the overwhelm of health systems as last resort, masks normalised in public places and required when outbreaks threaten us. Continue to monitor vaccination protection and react accordingly.
Prioritise ventilation and talk about hygiene like we did before antibiotics made it less important.
Stop the ridiculous life/death dichotomy - disability matters too and should be prevented where possible. Overwhelming our ICUs has knock on effects and should be avoided.
Public health in the hands of locals, not centralised.
Support people to isolate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There has to be a middle ground, it’s appropriate to continue things like improved ventilation, some levels of social distancing and mask wearing. We saw a massive drop in flu and acute respiratory conditions due to the measures implemented to deal with Covid.
It doesn’t have to be one way or another. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is there no middle ground?
Things open; but mask wearing, sanitising etc more common perhaps. Keep some form of isolation and contact tracing for positive cases perhaps. Annual update/boosters like with flu/RSV jabs.
"
Realistically, I can see masks and hand-sanitizer being a permanent part of normality for a small number of people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is there no middle ground?
Things open; but mask wearing, sanitising etc more common perhaps. Keep some form of isolation and contact tracing for positive cases perhaps. Annual update/boosters like with flu/RSV jabs.
Realistically, I can see masks and hand-sanitizer being a permanent part of normality for a small number of people. "
Not a bad thing. Masks are normal in many Asian countries and hand sanitizer is great when there's nowhere to wash your hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is there no middle ground?
Things open; but mask wearing, sanitising etc more common perhaps. Keep some form of isolation and contact tracing for positive cases perhaps. Annual update/boosters like with flu/RSV jabs.
Realistically, I can see masks and hand-sanitizer being a permanent part of normality for a small number of people.
Not a bad thing. Masks are normal in many Asian countries and hand sanitizer is great when there's nowhere to wash your hands. "
I care enough about people to put cloth on my face to prevent them getting any crud I might be carrying |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared"
In fact, viruses may be our replacement for antibiotics:
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/bacteriophage-solution-antibiotics-problem/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides... "
I think all positions are a middle ground, because the true extremes are untenable.
The true extremes would be something like, leave anyone who contracts Covid to die, refuse them medical treatment and cull the herd, or military China style nail everyone into their houses for a month and permanently close the border to eradicate the virus (and probably entirely cull any animal species that could potentially harbour it).
No one is arguing for either of those. Both of those are barbaric. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides... "
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides...
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched."
Yes, the immigration picture has become unbelievably emotional and irrational. And inconsistent to boot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides...
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched.
Yes, the immigration picture has become unbelievably emotional and irrational. And inconsistent to boot. "
Take today’s news that we are rescinding the offers to Afghan students who are among the best and brightest, future leaders and scientists, because the home office does not want to give the impression that Afghan refugees are welcome here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides...
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched.
Yes, the immigration picture has become unbelievably emotional and irrational. And inconsistent to boot.
Take today’s news that we are rescinding the offers to Afghan students who are among the best and brightest, future leaders and scientists, because the home office does not want to give the impression that Afghan refugees are welcome here."
Quite. That seems an entirely irrational, emotional decision, playing to a vocal minority rather than considering the long term benefit of the country.
When did such hysteria become national policy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Will come to the point when covid news isnt reported and ppl will just live with it.
The news will find something else to talk about.
Govt policies will no longer include covid such as grants and lock downs.
Will be yearly covid boosters.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides...
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched.
Yes, the immigration picture has become unbelievably emotional and irrational. And inconsistent to boot.
Take today’s news that we are rescinding the offers to Afghan students who are among the best and brightest, future leaders and scientists, because the home office does not want to give the impression that Afghan refugees are welcome here.
Quite. That seems an entirely irrational, emotional decision, playing to a vocal minority rather than considering the long term benefit of the country.
When did such hysteria become national policy?"
About fifty years ago. It has just been getting consistently worse as the quality of government (by both tories and labour) has degenerated with every successive election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason I didn't say "or a middle ground" is because in our society there is not really any concession for a middle ground on any subject. There's left and right, right and wrong, and both sides always believe they are right and the middle is attacked by both sides...
I’m not sure that is the case, there’s a very vocal minority on both sides at the moment. As is usual during times of economic difficulties the right has sought to blame immigration rather than unfettered capitalism. This has resulted in what were previously considered far right tropes becoming more mainstream; which has in turn made what we’re previously seen as centre left views being referred to as far left.
It is possible to have a middle ground but we need to start looking at things through a less emotional lens. For instance, immigration is empirically good for the country and economy but somehow the racist view of ‘immigration bad’ has become entrenched.
Yes, the immigration picture has become unbelievably emotional and irrational. And inconsistent to boot.
Take today’s news that we are rescinding the offers to Afghan students who are among the best and brightest, future leaders and scientists, because the home office does not want to give the impression that Afghan refugees are welcome here.
Quite. That seems an entirely irrational, emotional decision, playing to a vocal minority rather than considering the long term benefit of the country.
When did such hysteria become national policy?
About fifty years ago. It has just been getting consistently worse as the quality of government (by both tories and labour) has degenerated with every successive election."
It's time to take such hysteria out of politics, stop being so irrational and tribalistic. People of merit come from all parts of the world, and if we are to create a strong global Britain, we must not exclude people with great potential because of something so insignificant as their national origin.
It's only rational. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If, as could be the case, this virus infects human life with different iterations, strains and special forces name designations for infinitum, like the flu does, what would YOU like to do?
Put your hands up and say "fuck it, open everything up, back to normal, no more lockdowns, no restrictions, whoever gets it, gets it... Sorry!"
Or...
Put your hands up and say "fuck it, it's here to stay, close everything down, keep the restrictions, lockdowns are needed, maybe masks should be a permanent feature, I'll do whatever I need to save even just one life... Sorry!" "
Doesn't have to be binary does it? In comparison to flu, it's still relatively new so we don't know what a winter covid season might look like.
I'd imagine a future where we take sensible precautions and get on with things as best we can. Sensible precautions like washing hands and sanitising properly like we used to 30 years ago. Not going to work or school when we feel ill. Being cautious about what we spread and to whom. Nothing that we can't do. Just need to develop better habits for some people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum? "
I vote for the not eugenics option  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum? "
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane."
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *drianukMan
over a year ago
Spain, Lancs |
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane."
False dichotomy. No-one is into 'punishing the vulnerable'.
The vulnerable should be encouraged to do what they can. They should be supported with vaccines or other treatments, encouraged to wash hands regularly... whatever they think they need to do.
That isn't 'punishing' them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth"
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
False dichotomy. No-one is into 'punishing the vulnerable'.
The vulnerable should be encouraged to do what they can. They should be supported with vaccines or other treatments, encouraged to wash hands regularly... whatever they think they need to do.
That isn't 'punishing' them"
It is if you are making them do what others don’t have to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?"
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation... "
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?"
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus"
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Plan for what is known and have contingency measures.
It's vaccines or restrictions to limit its spread and damage that we have to support us.
Protection of the world to the best standards is within reach, via cooperation - equitable distribution of vaccines. I think there won't be great penetration of the antivax sentiment or those with hesitancy, where the virus is devastating countries.
If broad immunity can be shared, we can then face the future on a safer basis.
Vaccines now produced will be more easily updated to cope with dangerous variant. The world will need to increase production facilities, to support supplies of a potential booster treatment. Currently it's thought that an annual booster would suffice for the most vulnerable.
From the perspective of a largely protected country, the future currently isn't too bleak, until we may get a variant that escapes much of the vaccines' protections. Border controls will help to limit incoming variants and it's not too onerous a job to stay alert and to monitor the world and changes.
The vaccines are much of the backbone of this for the world. It needs buy-in and cooperation. And realistic expectations. There's no certainty of course but that's life. Wealthier countries have responsibilities to support the others. It's a 2 way benefit, it won't rely on just common decency.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality."
Funny how you unironically used the words straw man whilst asking attempting to ask leading questions about consequences  but just to put an end to your assumptions, the answers were different because one has many hidden and indirect consequences and the other has blatant immediate consequences. Nuance. Its a thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality.
Funny how you unironically used the words straw man whilst asking attempting to ask leading questions about consequences but just to put an end to your assumptions, the answers were different because one has many hidden and indirect consequences and the other has blatant immediate consequences. Nuance. Its a thing. "
Leading? I asked the exact same question, twice.
The fact is it is a straw man and you know it, and with so little nuance it’s hilariously obvious what you’re up to.
Morality, it’s a thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We shouldn't go back to some of the pre covid behaviour.
For instance it had become common place for people ill with viruses to go to work/school and spread whatever they had around.
Another thing was you could be in a shop checkout queue and the person would be so close behind you that you were almost touching. Hopefully now people will observe others personal space.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We shouldn't go back to some of the pre covid behaviour.
For instance it had become common place for people ill with viruses to go to work/school and spread whatever they had around.
Another thing was you could be in a shop checkout queue and the person would be so close behind you that you were almost touching. Hopefully now people will observe others personal space.
"
So... A little common sense goes a long way... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality.
Funny how you unironically used the words straw man whilst asking attempting to ask leading questions about consequences but just to put an end to your assumptions, the answers were different because one has many hidden and indirect consequences and the other has blatant immediate consequences. Nuance. Its a thing.
Leading? I asked the exact same question, twice.
The fact is it is a straw man and you know it, and with so little nuance it’s hilariously obvious what you’re up to.
Morality, it’s a thing."
What I'm up to? So there wasn't inevitably be going to be different answers for different scenarios, no? Trying to imply I'm "up to something" based on answers that were inevitably going to be different is worldstarhiphop level leading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality.
Funny how you unironically used the words straw man whilst asking attempting to ask leading questions about consequences but just to put an end to your assumptions, the answers were different because one has many hidden and indirect consequences and the other has blatant immediate consequences. Nuance. Its a thing.
Leading? I asked the exact same question, twice.
The fact is it is a straw man and you know it, and with so little nuance it’s hilariously obvious what you’re up to.
Morality, it’s a thing."
By the way, morality is a nuanced thing. Right can be wrong at the same time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
Ahh, but, there are various inhumane consequences to both of those options. I wouldn't want to be in government that's for sure, nor making either of those decisions in a ballot booth
What are the inhumane consequences of keeping restrictions?
Businesses going bust, putting people out of jobs, out of housing, into food banks, suicides, depression, starvation...
And what are the inhumane consequences of opening everything up?
It's actually not closing things down repeatedly, but, risking virulent spread of the virus and, of course, more deaths from the virus
Hmmm some might say that it’s telling you have put more effort into describing the inhumanity of locking down than of letting the virus do it’s worst.
But it’s your straw man so I suppose you get to decide the morality.
Funny how you unironically used the words straw man whilst asking attempting to ask leading questions about consequences but just to put an end to your assumptions, the answers were different because one has many hidden and indirect consequences and the other has blatant immediate consequences. Nuance. Its a thing.
Leading? I asked the exact same question, twice.
The fact is it is a straw man and you know it, and with so little nuance it’s hilariously obvious what you’re up to.
Morality, it’s a thing.
By the way, morality is a nuanced thing. Right can be wrong at the same time. "
People believe what they have to in order to sleep at night, I suppose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Think the numbers will slowly drop with spikes here and there.
Early next year press will start to find other things to concentrate and report on, Brexit and Afghanistan are just 2.
Slowly, things will become normalish and life, as always, will go on.
Will people wash their dirty mitts a bit more, maybe....but it is such an imposition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If not covid, then other viruses will come along while ever global mixing without biohygeine precautions continues. Fact is that the last 18 months has cost the world many trillions, and it just is not affordable to allow it to happen again. This has to be the wake up call.
So yes, I believe that appropriate measures must continue indefinitely. That doesn't mean the world stopping and everyone in self isolation forever.
In England it rains a lot and is cold in winter. Funnily enough when humans first came to this island from warmer places, they didn't say "oh fuck it, we've all just got to learn to like being cold and wet and dying of exposure every winter". Instead they invented overcoats and woolly gloves and houses to live in (okay via a few intermediate stages involving animal skins and caves, but you know what I mean).
Learning to live with it means washing hands, taking precautions against coughing up germs on people, adjusting social customs, changing expectations about how we do holidays. Learning to live with it means finding a new balance between protecting health and the cost and inconvenience of doing so, according to how the risk levels change.
We didn't previously say "fuck it let anybody that's ill die, it's all just underlying conditions, we're not going to spend a penny to help". But likewise we didn't spend an infinite amount of time and money keeping everyone alive forever. The fact is that society is all about mutual help and support, without it there would be no such thing as civilization and the human race would have been extinct ten minutes after it started.
People have to cooperate to find a sensible balance that allows an economy to continue, without writing off those that are more vulnerable. Because sooner or later we all become part of the vulnerable. It's called the social contract, you sign up and take on responsibilities, in return you get benefits.
When shit is happening you have to take on more responsibilities, but the benefits include a space to stand under the umbrella that helps protect everyone from the shit.
So yeah, it'll become natural expectation that people adjust their behaviour to help limit disease spread, any disease spread, now that we're all so much more aware about it. Those that won't change, that want to keep being selfish, might find themselves thrown out from under the umbrella and having to deal with the rain of shit on their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of course there is a middle ground, there will always be a middle ground, however, governments cant necessarily for financial and moral reasons choose a middle ground which is why I made it binary... So, if in the case that this virus is not going away and it is always going to be lethal and there has to be a decision one way or another for life with constant on off restrictions or life with none whatsoever imposed which would YOU prefer?
Imagine if it was put out as a referendum?
Then obviously you choose the option which shares the burden and doesn’t punish the vulnerable for something they can’t control. Anything else would be inhumane.
False dichotomy. No-one is into 'punishing the vulnerable'.
The vulnerable should be encouraged to do what they can. They should be supported with vaccines or other treatments, encouraged to wash hands regularly... whatever they think they need to do.
That isn't 'punishing' them
It is if you are making them do what others don’t have to."
That's a daft argument. Wheelchair users are, by definition, doing something most others don't have to.
Anyway, open up and move on. Ventilation, staying at home when I'll and good hygiene all are good comon sense.
Masks are unnatural and can get to fuck, permanently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If not covid, then other viruses will come along while ever global mixing without biohygeine precautions continues. Fact is that the last 18 months has cost the world many trillions, and it just is not affordable to allow it to happen again. This has to be the wake up call.
So yes, I believe that appropriate measures must continue indefinitely. That doesn't mean the world stopping and everyone in self isolation forever.
In England it rains a lot and is cold in winter. Funnily enough when humans first came to this island from warmer places, they didn't say "oh fuck it, we've all just got to learn to like being cold and wet and dying of exposure every winter". Instead they invented overcoats and woolly gloves and houses to live in (okay via a few intermediate stages involving animal skins and caves, but you know what I mean).
Learning to live with it means washing hands, taking precautions against coughing up germs on people, adjusting social customs, changing expectations about how we do holidays. Learning to live with it means finding a new balance between protecting health and the cost and inconvenience of doing so, according to how the risk levels change.
We didn't previously say "fuck it let anybody that's ill die, it's all just underlying conditions, we're not going to spend a penny to help". But likewise we didn't spend an infinite amount of time and money keeping everyone alive forever. The fact is that society is all about mutual help and support, without it there would be no such thing as civilization and the human race would have been extinct ten minutes after it started.
People have to cooperate to find a sensible balance that allows an economy to continue, without writing off those that are more vulnerable. Because sooner or later we all become part of the vulnerable. It's called the social contract, you sign up and take on responsibilities, in return you get benefits.
When shit is happening you have to take on more responsibilities, but the benefits include a space to stand under the umbrella that helps protect everyone from the shit.
So yeah, it'll become natural expectation that people adjust their behaviour to help limit disease spread, any disease spread, now that we're all so much more aware about it. Those that won't change, that want to keep being selfish, might find themselves thrown out from under the umbrella and having to deal with the rain of shit on their own."
I have absolute confidence that those things simply won't happen.
In a year or twos time this will all be forgotten, everyone will behave such as before and flu seasons each winter will see similar levels of deaths as before (some will be Covid, some won't).
The vast majority of people want normality.
My local supermarket over the last week has mask wearing at less than 25% (was much higher when rules first relaxed).
At my local football match yesterday, 10500 fans and not one mask to be seen amongst them. (2 stewards were wearing them) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If not covid, then other viruses will come along while ever global mixing without biohygeine precautions continues. Fact is that the last 18 months has cost the world many trillions, and it just is not affordable to allow it to happen again. This has to be the wake up call.
So yes, I believe that appropriate measures must continue indefinitely. That doesn't mean the world stopping and everyone in self isolation forever.
In England it rains a lot and is cold in winter. Funnily enough when humans first came to this island from warmer places, they didn't say "oh fuck it, we've all just got to learn to like being cold and wet and dying of exposure every winter". Instead they invented overcoats and woolly gloves and houses to live in (okay via a few intermediate stages involving animal skins and caves, but you know what I mean).
Learning to live with it means washing hands, taking precautions against coughing up germs on people, adjusting social customs, changing expectations about how we do holidays. Learning to live with it means finding a new balance between protecting health and the cost and inconvenience of doing so, according to how the risk levels change.
We didn't previously say "fuck it let anybody that's ill die, it's all just underlying conditions, we're not going to spend a penny to help". But likewise we didn't spend an infinite amount of time and money keeping everyone alive forever. The fact is that society is all about mutual help and support, without it there would be no such thing as civilization and the human race would have been extinct ten minutes after it started.
People have to cooperate to find a sensible balance that allows an economy to continue, without writing off those that are more vulnerable. Because sooner or later we all become part of the vulnerable. It's called the social contract, you sign up and take on responsibilities, in return you get benefits.
When shit is happening you have to take on more responsibilities, but the benefits include a space to stand under the umbrella that helps protect everyone from the shit.
So yeah, it'll become natural expectation that people adjust their behaviour to help limit disease spread, any disease spread, now that we're all so much more aware about it. Those that won't change, that want to keep being selfish, might find themselves thrown out from under the umbrella and having to deal with the rain of shit on their own."
Ohh dear here we go with the name calling!!  x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Be a endless donkey ..carrot...stick ..game for years to come and just some sensible precautions but with 20% or thereabouts of the population denying it or thinking they know better could be a long haul for most of us ..just good old common sense and dropping the quite stupid attitude that we are somehow apart from or different or even special from the rest of the world or a quite deadly combo of it all would go quite along way to getting this under control and it keeps getting repeated but ...Until everyone has some level of protection from this virus none of us will be safe ...so please please please stop playing the game the lot in power want us to...one thing unites us our humanity ..one thing that divides us ..suits ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think that if it ends up like flu, that's how it will be treated.
In fact, judging by previous pandemics, things just return to normal after a while. This might be 2 or 3 years, but it does happen. "
History shows this is the case. I'm all for being cautious but life has to go on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Life is for living not shielding; death is part of life , no one escapes it. That’s not to say if you catch it you will die - so Open up and let’s move on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
