Coronavirus UK: Only 10% parents happy to send kids back to school

First topic message reminder :

Most parents do not want their children to return to school as soon as the coronavirus lockdown is ended, with some happy to wait as long as 18 months, a survey has today revealed.

Just one in ten parents said they would happily send their children back to school as soon as the lockdown ends, results from the survey suggests.

A quarter of parents said the would feel comfortable with a September return date if it was confirmed now, while 7 per cent favoured July, according to data from the survey by charity Parentkind.

One in ten parents said they would only be happy to send their children back when staff and pupils had been vaccinated against Covid-19 - even if this took up to 18 months.

The figures come as union bosses today warned that teachers in fear of catching coronavirus are being asked to come back to schools, including for face-to-face meetings, to prepare for the return of students.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296605/Teachers-risk-catching-coronavirus-asked-return-schools-prepare-reopening.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, you really can't tell until after the event, true.  Perhaps I should have qualified that.

But it is also true that scientific testing is better than someone's hunch.  Antibody testing that is never administered tells us nothing.

Not a hunch quill... Only an idiot would think that the number of confirmed cases by testing is the same as the real number of cases out there...

Everyone acknowledges that the true number of cases is much higher than is shown by number of confirmed tested cases...

And both are better than hunches.

Not a hunch quill...

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Just trying to keep the children safe!!

Good, make sure you keep em off school till the infection rate is far lower then.

How much lower?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I think people need to get a grip a little bit...


Most of us have got much more chance of being killed in a road accudent every year than dying from covid19... And that has never stopped us going out and about, working, living life outside etc...


And you've got twice as much chance dying in an accident at home than you have outside in a road accident!!!


We can't carry on with taxpayers funding some to sit at home having what is essentially a nice long paid holiday staycation, scared to step outside the front doir... While everyone else is expected to just carry on going to work as usual, to have to earn their money to live and eat etc, and wondering why others are getting a nice easy ride being govt funding to sit at home doing fuck all...


Seems "we are all equal... but some are more equal than others"...!


We know that under 50s with no underlying health cobditions account for a very very small fraction of the deaths from covid19... And that the amount of deaths in total is a very small fraction of the real likely number of cases so far... And we know that the numbers for even younger people and children is miniscule...


And as I said above... Many more times likely to die from a road accident... And even twice as likely to die from an accident at home than of an accident outside...

I see you haven't answered mine and eddie's questions.

I have explained my position/opinion...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not a hunch quill...

If there is no scientific evidence, it is by definition a hunch. We could rephrase that to 'guess'. But the meaning is the same.

There is no scientific evidence that huge numbers of untested people have not had this virus...



The experts acknowledge that the number of infected people is much higher than the number of confirmed to have tested positive for it...



The only question remaining is... how many more than is known...!?


I would say that given that this virus has been in the UK for much longer than was originally believed... The numbers of those who have been infected and recovered from it, is probably around 100x the official known confirmed cases here...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not a hunch quill...

If there is no scientific evidence, it is by definition a hunch.  We could rephrase that to 'guess'.  But the meaning is the same.

There is some scientific evidence for Tommy's claim

We know that those younger more so under 45. Are extremely unlikely to suffer complications, if they do not have underlining health issues. 

These are the listed underlining health issues and not the bullshit ones you invented.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/

This is verified globally

Hence Tommy makes a very valid point in that we should have approached this more from a few to have many healthy people infected. In ordered to bring about a faster and necessary herd immunity. With a large number of younger and fitter people becoming infected. As their chances of dying from contracting is extremely low

However Tommy has failed to factor a number of variables with having people return to work of this age group

A number may have partners or children with an underlining health condition. Which would rule them out of being able to return to work

This would reduce the number of fit people without any underling health issues from people able to work., As they would have to remain at home. To ensure they lower the risk of infection

So there is scientific evidence behind Tommy's claim and the only fault I find in his claim is factoring aspects like this

He needs to factor in the reality that healthy people will live with a number of people that have underlining health issues. This will reduce the number of people able to actively.

Hence by and large his reasoning is sound to me and its not often I agree with Tommy.

We have to look at tackling this long term

It means we have to adapt as societies and why I find the view where many parents will not allow their children to go back to school is misplaced. They are fearing the worst for their children, when those under 14. Are by and large the least likely to die from this. Yet as this fear is controlling parents with their children. When if those kids have nobody they live with who is at high risk. Then those parents are going to hold back any recovery of the economy.

Fear is controlling them. When in reality that fear has been generated not by deaths of children or people their own age, but by a total number of deaths. They take the larger figure as a means to be controlled by fear

When you do the maths on risk. Then the risks parents fear on their children dying, is way out of proportion to the statistics of children dying here from this virus. There has been sadly 2 deaths of children under 14 in this country and in many countries there is not even any at this age

It means fear is controlling their thinking

The fear should be centred on protecting the group that are vulnerable and keeping them safe. As a vaccine may be years away and hence the better plan is for herd immunity. Those fit and between 18-45 have to shoulder this burden in this war by working and I happy to take that risk myself.

When I have underlining health issues myself. I have been back at work for sometime. The needs of combating this nationally and globally outweigh my need to stay safe.

Hence I am willing to take that risk

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If there is no scientific evidence, it is by definition a hunch.  We could rephrase that to 'guess'.  But the meaning is the same.

There is some scientific evidence for Tommy's claim

We know that those younger more so under 45. Are extremely unlikely to suffer complications, if they do not have underlining health issues. 

These are the listed underlining health issues and not the bullshit ones you invented.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/

This is verified globally

Hence Tommy makes a very valid point in that we should have approached this more from a few to have many healthy people infected. In ordered to bring about a faster and necessary herd immunity. With a large number of younger and fitter people becoming infected. As their chances of dying from contracting is extremely low

However Tommy has failed to factor a number of variables with having people return to work of this age group

A number may have partners or children with an underlining health condition. Which would rule them out of being able to return to work

This would reduce the number of fit people without any underling health issues from people able to work., As they would have to remain at home. To ensure they lower the risk of infection

So there is scientific evidence behind Tommy's claim and the only fault I find in his claim is factoring aspects like this

He needs to factor in the reality that healthy people will live with a number of people that have underlining health issues. This will reduce the number of people able to actively.

Hence by and large his reasoning is sound to me and its not often I agree with Tommy.

We have to look at tackling this long term

It means we have to adapt as societies and why I find the view where many parents will not allow their children to go back to school is misplaced. They are fearing the worst for their children, when those under 14. Are by and large the least likely to die from this. Yet as this fear is controlling parents with their children. When if those kids have nobody they live with who is at high risk. Then those parents are going to hold back any recovery of the economy.

Fear is controlling them. When in reality that fear has been generated not by deaths of children or people their own age, but by a total number of deaths. They take the larger figure as a means to be controlled by fear

When you do the maths on risk. Then the risks parents fear on their children dying, is way out of proportion to the statistics of children dying here from this virus. There has been sadly 2 deaths of children under 14 in this country and in many countries there is not even any at this age

It means fear is controlling their thinking

The fear should be centred on protecting the group that are vulnerable and keeping them safe. As a vaccine may be years away and hence the better plan is for herd immunity. Those fit and between 18-45 have to shoulder this burden in this war by working and I happy to take that risk myself.

When I have underlining health issues myself. I have been back at work for sometime. The needs of combating this nationally and globally outweigh my need to stay safe.

Hence I am willing to take that risk

Just to comment on the bit highlighted...


I didn't fail to think about this aspect... most of those you mention will already be the member of household who goes out and about to get the supplies and who is doing all the other necessary errands anyway, and they will already be taking a few extra precautions regarding keeping safe indoors by maybe the actions of changing of clothes/washing hands etc on re entry to their household, plus being generally more careful indoors too with distancing etc...


I'm sure effective arrangements could be set up so these people could return to work while keeping risk of any transmission extremely low...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There is some scientific evidence for Tommy's claim

We know that those younger more so under 45. Are extremely unlikely to suffer complications, if they do not have underlining health issues. 

These are the listed underlining health issues and not the bullshit ones you invented.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/whos-at-higher-risk-from-coronavirus/

This is verified globally

Hence Tommy makes a very valid point in that we should have approached this more from a few to have many healthy people infected. In ordered to bring about a faster and necessary herd immunity. With a large number of younger and fitter people becoming infected. As their chances of dying from contracting is extremely low

However Tommy has failed to factor a number of variables with having people return to work of this age group

A number may have partners or children with an underlining health condition. Which would rule them out of being able to return to work

This would reduce the number of fit people without any underling health issues from people able to work., As they would have to remain at home. To ensure they lower the risk of infection

So there is scientific evidence behind Tommy's claim and the only fault I find in his claim is factoring aspects like this

He needs to factor in the reality that healthy people will live with a number of people that have underlining health issues. This will reduce the number of people able to actively.

Hence by and large his reasoning is sound to me and its not often I agree with Tommy.

We have to look at tackling this long term

It means we have to adapt as societies and why I find the view where many parents will not allow their children to go back to school is misplaced. They are fearing the worst for their children, when those under 14. Are by and large the least likely to die from this. Yet as this fear is controlling parents with their children. When if those kids have nobody they live with who is at high risk. Then those parents are going to hold back any recovery of the economy.

Fear is controlling them. When in reality that fear has been generated not by deaths of children or people their own age, but by a total number of deaths. They take the larger figure as a means to be controlled by fear

When you do the maths on risk. Then the risks parents fear on their children dying, is way out of proportion to the statistics of children dying here from this virus. There has been sadly 2 deaths of children under 14 in this country and in many countries there is not even any at this age

It means fear is controlling their thinking

The fear should be centred on protecting the group that are vulnerable and keeping them safe. As a vaccine may be years away and hence the better plan is for herd immunity. Those fit and between 18-45 have to shoulder this burden in this war by working and I happy to take that risk myself.

When I have underlining health issues myself. I have been back at work for sometime. The needs of combating this nationally and globally outweigh my need to stay safe.

Hence I am willing to take that risk

Just to comment on the bit highlighted...


I didn't fail to think about this aspect... most of those you mention will already be the member of household who goes out and about to get the supplies and who is doing all the other necessary errands anyway, and they will already be taking a few extra precautions regarding keeping safe indoors by maybe the actions of changing of clothes/washing hands etc on re entry to their household, plus being generally more careful indoors too with distancing etc...


I'm sure effective arrangements could be set up so these people could return to work while keeping risk of any transmission extremely low...

Getting supplies once a week is far removed from working 5 days a week Tommy. Based on risk values

Even more when people can have supplies delivered

So you make good points but you are not fully thinking this through

No... I have thought about it...


These people could first have antibody testing, to see if they've already had it... And I suspect a large number will have already had it... Which immediately frees them up to go to work and carry on as normal... Also free from the worry of getting it and passing it on, as they've already had it... Just needing to take precautions with changing clothes and washing thoroughly when re entering the home...


Those others who's antibody tests showed they had not had it, could have alternative accommodation set up, maybe their place of work could set up some shared digs for them somewhere in little groups, so they can get back to work as well as completely eliminating any risk of passing on to their vulnerable loved one for a while... Whereby they can also be part of fighting the virus head on by catching it and defeating it, and adding to the number of immune needed to achieve herd immunity, in order to protect all...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:



No... I have thought about it...


These people could first have antibody testing, to see if they've already had it... 

You are making further flaws in your arguments

The view is to go off healthy and young people

You now say to test these people in regards to antibodies

How to do you carry out this mass testing and over how many days?

You have to factor in that the period can be over at least 14 days

So are you going to test the same people every day for 14 days?

Also... Antibody test the ones who have the vulnerable conditions too... As a priority... As there must be large swathes of these people who have also had the virus too already, and have fought it off too, also with mild or no symptoms as well as those who thought they also just had the flu...


While most who have died so far may well be either older and/or with underlying health issues... It doesn't follow that all who are older and/or have underlying health issues will die...!

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



No... I have thought about it...


These people could first have antibody testing, to see if they've already had it... 

You are making further flaws in your arguments

The view is to go off healthy and young people

You now say to test these people in regards to antibodies

How to do you carry out this mass testing and over how many days?

You have to factor in that the period can be over at least 14 days

So are you going to test the same people every day for 14 days?

Going to bed Tommy, hope to hear your answer tomorrow

Why can't they test everybody, anytime they want?

Didge... You were talking about people who are under 50 and fit and healthy, but who live with someone who has health issues...


This would not be a huge number, and many of them will have already had the virus, and should be antibody tested where possible, thereby being able to go back to work without fear of getting virus and passing it on if test shows they have already had it...


And as I said... Other measures could be arranged where they could live elsewhere temporarily while going back to work, and would be better off actually catching the virus and fighting it off so then becoming immune, and then going back up live in regular household, safe in the knowledge they have had the virus and fought it off and won't be able to pass it on...

Tommy Monk wrote:



Didge... You were talking about people who are under 50 and fit and healthy, but who live with someone who has health issues...


This would not be a huge number, and many of them will have already had the virus, and should be antibody tested where possible, thereby being able to go back to work without fear of getting virus and passing it on if test shows they have already had it...


And as I said... Other measures could be arranged where they could live elsewhere temporarily while going back to work, and would be better off actually catching the virus and fighting it off so then becoming immune, and then going back up live in regular household, safe in the knowledge they have had the virus and fought it off and won't be able to pass it on...

Sorry Tommy, but your numbers are way off

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/millions-with-health-conditions-at-risk-from-covid-19-if-forced-back-to-work

Tommy Monk wrote:



Didge... You were talking about people who are under 50 and fit and healthy, but who live with someone who has health issues...


This would not be a huge number, and many of them will have already had the virus, and should be antibody tested where possible, thereby being able to go back to work without fear of getting virus and passing it on if test shows they have already had it...


And as I said... Other measures could be arranged where they could live elsewhere temporarily while going back to work, and would be better off actually catching the virus and fighting it off so then becoming immune, and then going back up live in regular household, safe in the knowledge they have had the virus and fought it off and won't be able to pass it on...

It's not clear yet how immunity against this virus works, or even if people are immune once they have had it.

+1

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Didge... You were talking about people who are under 50 and fit and healthy, but who live with someone who has health issues...


This would not be a huge number, and many of them will have already had the virus, and should be antibody tested where possible, thereby being able to go back to work without fear of getting virus and passing it on if test shows they have already had it...


And as I said... Other measures could be arranged where they could live elsewhere temporarily while going back to work, and would be better off actually catching the virus and fighting it off so then becoming immune, and then going back up live in regular household, safe in the knowledge they have had the virus and fought it off and won't be able to pass it on...

Sorry Tommy, but your numbers are way off

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/millions-with-health-conditions-at-risk-from-covid-19-if-forced-back-to-work

No... You were talking about people not being able to go back to work if they lived with other vulnerable people... And that is what I was talking about too...

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Didge... You were talking about people who are under 50 and fit and healthy, but who live with someone who has health issues...


This would not be a huge number, and many of them will have already had the virus, and should be antibody tested where possible, thereby being able to go back to work without fear of getting virus and passing it on if test shows they have already had it...


And as I said... Other measures could be arranged where they could live elsewhere temporarily while going back to work, and would be better off actually catching the virus and fighting it off so then becoming immune, and then going back up live in regular household, safe in the knowledge they have had the virus and fought it off and won't be able to pass it on...

It's not clear yet how immunity against this virus works, or even if people are immune once they have had it.

Yes it is...


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-scientists-conclude-people-cannot-be-infected-twice-11981721

@Tom, you need to learn that Sky News does not publish in America. As such, a Sky News article does not exist.

No, it is not known if immunity develops with Covid-19. That is because there has been little study of those who have had it. Before we could say that post-infection immunity sets in, we need to study post-infection patients.

That, in turn, requires testing. We have very little testing because our government, and perhaps yours, is suppressing any testing...trying to hide how bad is the spread of this virus.

"Coronavirus: Scientists conclude people cannot be infected twice... Researchers at the South Korean centre for disease control and prevention (CDC) now say it is impossible for the COVID-19 virus to reactivate in human bodies..."



From the link in my above post...

Tommy Monk wrote:


"Coronavirus: Scientists conclude people cannot be infected twice... Researchers at the South Korean centre for disease control and prevention (CDC) now say it is impossible for the COVID-19 virus to reactivate in human bodies..."

From the link in my above post...

Easy to say, hard to prove.  Sounds, just by they way they announce it, to be a sloppy assumption, not a scientific conclusion.

I don't believe it unless I see the evidence.

Then you should do your own research into the science...


It is not for me to spoon feed you...

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I think people need to get a grip a little bit...


Most of us have got much more chance of being killed in a road accudent every year than dying from covid19... And that has never stopped us going out and about, working, living life outside etc...


And you've got twice as much chance dying in an accident at home than you have outside in a road accident!!!


We can't carry on with taxpayers funding some to sit at home having what is essentially a nice long paid holiday staycation, scared to step outside the front doir... While everyone else is expected to just carry on going to work as usual, to have to earn their money to live and eat etc, and wondering why others are getting a nice easy ride being govt funding to sit at home doing fuck all...


Seems "we are all equal... but some are more equal than others"...!


We know that under 50s with no underlying health cobditions account for a very very small fraction of the deaths from covid19... And that the amount of deaths in total is a very small fraction of the real likely number of cases so far... And we know that the numbers for even younger people and children is miniscule...


And as I said above... Many more times likely to die from a road accident... And even twice as likely to die from an accident at home than of an accident outside...

Agreed, the fear is way out of line in relation to the risk. We accept risk in our lives daily, yet trudge on.

Sorta reminds me of tornados in Texas. If they have been part of your life forever, you respect them, realize they can kill you, but you dont drop everything and dive in the closet everytime they issue a warning. Most of us dont even do that when the sirens go off. We just pay more attention.

Now a transplant from say the UK may be running for cover with a tornado warning. That's because it's a new risk to them and they haven't had time to adapt.

I bet if we took someone out of the jungles of Borneo and put them on a jet they would be terrified. Yet most of us will board a winged metal tube that flies 600 mph without batting an eye. The fear of the new and unknown is fairly strong and probably helped many of our ancestors survive.

Exactly!!!

Now for a bit of reality: 85,000 deaths in the US, with all precautions in place.

Maddog wrote:...but you dont drop everything and dive in the closet everytime they issue a warning

You do if you are dead.  Only, it's called a pine box.  

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's not clear yet how immunity against this virus works, or even if people are immune once they have had it.

Yes it is...


https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-scientists-conclude-people-cannot-be-infected-twice-11981721

No offence Tommy, but I have more faith in our own scientists and experts than the reports coming from S Korea, Japan and China.
They have said on more than one occasion when they give their live updates from Downing St that they simply don't know enough about this virus and it's effects to say definitely whether people are immune once they have had it.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Then you should do your own research into the science...

Your reluctance is telling. You know there is a flaw in your data, and consequently you don't want us to go too far down that road.

I have done a great deal more research than you, already. We have nearly 85,000 deaths in the US. My conclusion is that you are wrong. The response to this virus was underwhelming for the first 70-days, allowing it to gain a foothold.

During the same time S. Korea, for example, went to work immediately on lockdowns and distancing, and they have had under 300-deaths. With an exponential spread, timing is everything.

Because of lack of testing, we have no reliable figures. Least of all do we have any idea whether immunology works as per other microbes. We know it doesn't with HIV. It's a tossup as to Covid-19.

I'm still waiting for Tommy to either own up to the fact that he accused me and eddie of wanting to keep our little girl out of school not for the sake of her safety but out of our own laziness, or to explain whatever the hell it was he did mean by that.

I can wait. I won't forget.

My point was that if we are all supposed to be equal and all in it together... And as plenty of other people have been going to work and kids going to school throughout all this... Everybody else can do so too... Unless you can tell me why you think you are more important than all the others I just mentioned...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:My point was that if we are all supposed to be equal and all in it together... And as plenty of other people have been going to work and kids going to school throughout all this... Everybody else can do so too... Unless you can tell me why you think you are more important than all the others I just mentioned...!?

Tommy, if you invent a way to stop your body from infecting the bodies of others, that will be equality. In the meantime, by going out and spreading the disease around you are violating everybody's right to be free of the virus...some would even say it is assault, and even murder.

Now, we put people in prison for causing bodily harm to others. The shutdown is a compromise that accomplishes suppressing the virus, without the stigma of being a criminal. The person who is unwilling to accept compromise, usually ends up losing.

I am not spreading any virus around...


I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

Tommy Monk wrote:I am not spreading any virus around...

I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

If you are not spreading the virus around now, you will be if you follow the program you suggest.  Time is an element of spread.

Look at it this way: you are prospectively making yourself a criminal.  You are showing a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of others, which is one theory of criminal intent.

Tommy Monk wrote:


I am not spreading any virus around...


I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

I've been working too.

Quill sends his Thai servant out to gather his stuff. At least that's his story.  

Funny how the folks staying home are wanting accolades eh?

Well, they are stunning and brave.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I am not spreading any virus around...

I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

If you are not spreading the virus around now, you will be if you follow the program you suggest.  Time is an element of spread.

Look at it this way: you are prospectively making yourself a criminal.  You are showing a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of others, which is one theory of criminal intent.

No... I'm going to work... Doing essential work in a hospital...



I have been helping to turn some private hospital rooms into covid19 treatment ICU rooms actually...

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I am not spreading any virus around...


I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

I've been working too.

Quill sends his Thai servant out to gather his stuff. At least that's his story.  

Funny how the folks staying home are wanting accolades eh?

Well, they are stunning and brave.

Yes...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you are not spreading the virus around now, you will be if you follow the program you suggest.  Time is an element of spread.

Look at it this way: you are prospectively making yourself a criminal.  You are showing a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of others, which is one theory of criminal intent.

No... I'm going to work... Doing essential work in a hospital...



I have been helping to turn some private hospital rooms into covid19 treatment ICU rooms actually...

You may need to convert some rooms to operating rooms soon.

I predict a rash of shoulder surgeries in the near future from folks patting themselves in the back too much.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I am not spreading any virus around...


I don't have the virus... And I have to go to work... For the last few weeks I've been working in a hospital...

I've been working too.

Quill sends his Thai servant out to gather his stuff. At least that's his story.  

Funny how the folks staying home are wanting accolades eh?

Well, they are stunning and brave.

Yawn...  Jealousy.  If you don't believe it, it shouldn't bother you so.  Red, you're not a very bright bulb, are you?  

You are supposed to be blocking me, yet I am your primary focus on NewsFix.  Ah well, it's flattering.

 

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



No... I'm going to work... Doing essential work in a hospital...



I have been helping to turn some private hospital rooms into covid19 treatment ICU rooms actually...

You may need to convert some rooms to operating rooms soon.

I predict a rash of shoulder surgeries in the near future from folks patting themselves in the  back too much.  

Very witty.

There is a happy middle ground.
People should not be mixing, rubbing shoulders with people, visiting other people's houses, disregarding the lockdown and social distancing rules, and the ones that are are selfish idiots.

People who cant work from home, are providing a service for others, the ones who are caring or keeping the country running, obviously cant stay home, hopefully they are being protected by their employers.

Not sure why one has to be scornful of the other.
I am self isolating so obviously not mixing with family or friends...I am incredibly grateful to the people who are in the second category.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You may need to convert some rooms to operating rooms soon.

I predict a rash of shoulder surgeries in the near future from folks patting themselves in the  back too much.  

Very witty.

There is a happy middle ground.
People should not be mixing, rubbing shoulders with people, visiting other people's houses, disregarding the lockdown and social distancing rules, and the ones that are are selfish idiots.

People who cant work from home, are providing a service for others, the ones who are caring or keeping the country running, obviously cant stay home, hopefully they are being protected by their employers.

Not sure why one has to be scornful of the other.
I am self isolating so obviously  not mixing with family or friends...I am incredibly grateful to the people who are in the second category.

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You may need to convert some rooms to operating rooms soon.

I predict a rash of shoulder surgeries in the near future from folks patting themselves in the  back too much.  

Very witty.

There is a happy middle ground.
People should not be mixing, rubbing shoulders with people, visiting other people's houses, disregarding the lockdown and social distancing rules, and the ones that are are selfish idiots.

People who cant work from home, are providing a service for others, the ones who are caring or keeping the country running, obviously cant stay home, hopefully they are being protected by their employers.

Not sure why one has to be scornful of the other.
I am self isolating so obviously  not mixing with family or friends...I am incredibly grateful to the people who are in the second category.

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

so the robber should bee free to ply his trade
and the feeble minded body vandal?

you should be free to spread a deadly virus


just because YOU dont like the law?

you are insane

Let's take prohibition in America. It was designed to improve the health and safety of society, by removing a product that harmed people and killed many of them.

Some folks said fuck that and broke the law.

Eventually people realized that a free society can't guarantee safety from people harming society in general and themselves specifically.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

so the robber should bee free to ply his trade
and the feeble minded body vandal?

you should be free to spread a deadly virus


just because YOU dont like the law?

you are insane

Should the slave be free in spite of a law saying he can't be?

Maddog wrote:Let's take prohibition in America. It was designed to improve the health and safety of society, by removing a product that harmed people and killed many of them.  

Some folks said fuck that and broke the law.

Eventually people realized that a free society can't guarantee safety from people harming society in general and themselves specifically.  

there is a difference between covid and booze....

no one ...anywhere has EVER said....I could do with a good stiff covid.........

Maddog wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

so the robber should bee free to ply his trade
and the feeble minded body vandal?

you should be free to spread a deadly virus


just because YOU dont like the law?

you are insane

Should the slave be free in spite of a law saying he can't be?

irrelevant...comparing apples and oranges
slavery harms the individual (it actually harms society in subtle ways too)
wearing a mask to protect others from your potential contagion harms neither you or any other individual and helps and protects society, whos benefits you are happy to take, but to which you are not when requested happy to contribute. THAT makes you selfish and, given the severity and danger your attitude presents ...evil

Maddog wrote:Let's take prohibition in America. It was designed to improve the health and safety of society, by removing a product that harmed people and killed many of them.  

Some folks said fuck that and broke the law.

Eventually people realized that a free society can't guarantee safety from people harming society in general and themselves specifically.  

So, you are saying they should legalize heroin?  People should be allowed to drive while intoxicated?  Flying?

Are there no standards at all?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:


Very witty.

There is a happy middle ground.
People should not be mixing, rubbing shoulders with people, visiting other people's houses, disregarding the lockdown and social distancing rules, and the ones that are are selfish idiots.

People who cant work from home, are providing a service for others, the ones who are caring or keeping the country running, obviously cant stay home, hopefully they are being protected by their employers.

Not sure why one has to be scornful of the other.
I am self isolating so obviously  not mixing with family or friends...I am incredibly grateful to the people who are in the second category.

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

Laws are put in place to benefit society, so on the whole I agree with them.

Not sure how a law, which has  obviously been put in place to protect millions of people from a needless death,  can be contradicted though.

I wonder if the people who are ignoring the social distancing  rule would feel if they caught the virus and transferred it  to a weaker family member or workmate and they died.

Maybe the cavalier attitude wouldn't feel so edgy then?

Victorismyhero wrote:

Maddog wrote:Let's take prohibition in America. It was designed to improve the health and safety of society, by removing a product that harmed people and killed many of them.  

Some folks said fuck that and broke the law.

Eventually people realized that a free society can't guarantee safety from people harming society in general and themselves specifically.  

there is a difference between covid and booze....

no one ...anywhere has EVER said....I could do with a good stiff covid.........

There is no difference as to why booze was banned. It was for the good of society.

Only a selfish bastard would disagree with the logic behind such laws designed to keep people safe.

Have you no compassion for the lives destroyed by that product?

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I prefer the term snarky.

Do you think people should always follow the law, even if they find it to be wrong?

Is there no place for civil disobedience anymore?

No place for push back against authoritarianism?

Laws are put in place to benefit society, so on the whole I agree with them.

Not sure how a law, which has  obviously been put in place to protect millions of people from a needless death,  can be contradicted though.

I wonder if the people who are ignoring the social distancing  rule would feel if they caught the virus and transferred it  to a weaker family member or workmate and they died.

Maybe the cavalier attitude wouldn't feel so edgy then?

Because the laws don't seem to be very effective.

Compare the draconian measures taken by the UK and the far less restrictive ones of Sweden and compare results.

You're saying the laws worked based on the hearsay of the people that instituted them.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Laws are put in place to benefit society, so on the whole I agree with them.

Not sure how a law, which has  obviously been put in place to protect millions of people from a needless death,  can be contradicted though.

I wonder if the people who are ignoring the social distancing  rule would feel if they caught the virus and transferred it  to a weaker family member or workmate and they died.

Maybe the cavalier attitude wouldn't feel so edgy then?

Because the laws don't seem to be very effective.

Compare the draconian measures taken by the UK and the far less restrictive ones  of Sweden and compare results.  

You're saying the laws worked based on the hearsay of the people that instituted them.

If the lockdown and social distancing hadn't been put in place the death toll would have been much higher....estimates were as high as 250 thousand at this point.

Sweden and the Uk are very different and cant really be comparable.
We have many more built up cities and international airports, we house 66 million people as opposed to their 10 million.

Sweden has seemed to lockdown less than most other countries though.....time will tell if they have made the right decision.