27 March 2021  /  Updated 17 July 2021
December lockdown p...
 
Notifications
Clear all

December lockdown planned

Page 1 / 2

CoronanationStreet
Posts: 543
Topic starter
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

It appears the govt is planning yet another firebreak lockdown in December as the only alternative to jab freedom licences being introduced (although one assumes there is no chance of the latter not being introduced). 

It's now clear the ultimate goal was the introduction of totalitarian communist freedom licences and surveillance fueled by a cooked up virus with a negligible fatality rate.

NYE fireworks in London cancelled as presumably they haven't yet decided how to check freedom licences on the street for that number of slaves in attendance.

This govt knows no limits to its depravity in blackmailing children and parents, nor the public at large.

3 weeks to flatten the curve.

15 million jabs to "freedom".

The jabs are the way out of the "pandemic".

They are utter fucking liars.

 

32 Replies
3 Replies
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @coronanationstreet
  1. It's now clear the ultimate goal was the introduction of totalitarian communist freedom licences and surveillance fueled by a cooked up virus with a negligible fatality rate.

The fatality rate is now more-or-less agreed to be  ~1 in 400, which is not exactly negligible, if 60m people had a dose in the UK, it would amount to 150,000 British people, or about half the casualties in the second world war, which was not a negligible event.

  1. NYE fireworks in London cancelled
  2. That's a good thing, no need for fireworks, thanks.I think it's stretching it too far to think  fireworks are a human right. That would be ridiculous.
  3. This govt knows no limits to its depravity in blackmailing children and parents, nor the public at large. They are utter fucking liars.
  4. Well we seem to be out of lockdowns and the mask wearing is minimal.
  5. Perhaps you are over-excited to be involved in something big? I think most people here are  like that. This is the biggest event of their lives, so far, so they are worked up.

 

  1. Ro tell you the truth, in fact, everything is very simple. By hook or by crook, a virus came about that is very transmissible and kills 1 in 400 of the people it infects. That's just the way it is.
  2. So, for a little while, perhaps it's right to cut back on the socialising and work from home if you have a phone or computer job. And it's correct to search out vaccines to limit the spread. These things are justifiable, hence both Labour and Conservative agree to it, despite being at one another's throat usually.
  3. There is no ideal way to fix  this thing, and some mistakes were made, for sure.
  4. But there is NO Ernst Stavro Blofeld to blame for this. For sure some influential billionaires have had too much to say, but that has had no impact on things.
  5. The general view is that vaccines are, as the experts confirm in general, safe and effective, and I'm afraid you'll just have to do your bit and suck it up.
  6. Vaccines have helped to limit the spread, people are not dying in droves from vaccination, even though we've been using them for nearly a year.
  7. So your input is not helpful at this point in the Pandemic. The virus is making it's way to being Endemic, and the vast, vast majority of people will get through this winter to  find things are much better in the Spring. So quit the hysteric, it's time to calm down. Shrieking does no good at all.

 

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

 the govt is planning yet another firebreak lockdown in December. They are utter fucking liars.

 

It's not right, plan A is to make it to new Year with no lockdown. Even plan B is

face masks  in some settings but not in bars/restaurants, and asking people to work from home.

basically it's miles away from lockdown. You're blowing you top  over nothing. All the signals are that there will be no onerous restrictions, even in plan B. If we are to ever get back to normal, this shrieking and panic has to cease. Shrieking and panic and (most of all )spreading vaccine misinformation makes lockdown more likely.

Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@ewloe your comments are fatuous and inane. 

We are now 18 months into what is supposedly still a pandemic, from which next to no one is dying in this country compared to other causes.

If you possibly think that masks have played any role in preventing the spread of the virus which is airborne then review the evidence and previous govt and SAGE statements about masks alongside the equally fatuous and inane rules made up governing their use, such as in restaurants when standing up but not whilst seated. Remember that? The air is different at 4ft above ground when eating (more than a sausage roll, presumably beause that also makes a difference to the CFR of a novel and it seems manufactured virus) than at 6ft.

Plan B provides for a possible extension of jab-related freedom passes into other settings which by its own lack of definition includes pubs and restaurants. Of course they won't say masks are required in those places as the only people in them will have been pre-approved by the govt via their surveillance app ergo the forced buy-in and trade off is achieved.

Further, during the lockdown I went out to work as I had roles permitting me to do so. I wore masks for 12 hours a day with a deleterious effect on my health but did my bit to keep the country and economy going and retain some sense of what is normal. 

Masks, freedom to go about one's daily life in one's own country conditional on being repeatedly jabbed whenever govts say so, shutting down businesses and social life and preventing families from seeing each other is not normal, it never has been normal and it never should be. Stamping out fundamental human rights in order to "save the NHS" is not normal. 

Perhaps I have wider life experience than you and a deeper inherent sense of the values and principles of my country, and the society within it and that might well explain why your comments are, as stated, fatuous and inane.

 

Reply
Splattt
Posts: 98
(@splattt)
Joined: 3 months ago

If we're ever to get back to normal people need to make as much noise as possible and pushback against every single restriction forced on the population.

Otherwise we'll *never* get normal back.

This thing isn't going away.  Accepting any restrictions now is a de facto acceptance of them forever more.

 

Reply
1 Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@splattt quite right, and that is certainly my approach to this now. And in fact mostly elsewhere and not on here.

Reply
Ben Shirley
Posts: 84
(@ben-shirley)
Joined: 1 year ago

Nice try, ewlem. And yet you conveniently forget to mention that the average Covid death is an octogenarian with two or three co-morbidities, as we like to call them. In light of that, 1 in 400 is quite negligible. Between 600,000 and 700,000 people die every year in Britain. Most Covid deaths would have occurred anyway of either causes either within the last few years or the next couple. Get a grip. Remember that in the war, young and healthy men and women were being perforated by bullets and blown apart by bombs, while whole cities were literally being destroyed. The comparison doesn't work.

Reply
2 Replies
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@ben-shirley yes. Bombs dropping from the sky are indiscriminate however closely they are aimed. 

Sars2 is, on the official data and evidence, incontrovertibly only serious on a widescale basis in elderly people and those with co-morbidities.

And for that we have to accept the fall of democracy and transformation into police states?

No. Not now, not next year, never.

Reply
UKResponse
(@ukresponse)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 36
Nobody
Posts: 528
(@nobody)
Joined: 11 months ago

It might be a good idea, in light of the pandemic, to form a rule that the principle of freedom is a more significant condition of communal and personal well-being than measures that curtail this condition under the guise of protecting the population from a virus whose complex nature is only rendered more problematic by the medical interventions supposed to alleviate its threat.  Looking at the catastrophe that has been the vaccination programme, it might appear as if the medical intervention was merely part of some other underlying agenda since it has been so ineffective at promoting immunisation against a pathogen that would probably have been long gone without the interventions.  The fact that the WHO had to change crucial criteria governing the institution of a pandemic might indicate that we should value freedom, as a condition of community and personal viability, above being ruled by the dictates of public health experts and officials who trade complex representations, outside of clinical exposure to the form of the pathogen, so as to bring about desired goals as mediated as their perception of the pathogen.

Reply
17 Replies
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @nobody

a rule that the principle of freedom is a more significant condition of communal and personal well-being than measures that curtail this condition

Parliament can do as it pleases, king Charles tried to rule parliament and had his head removed. Parliament can make or unmake ant law.

Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@ewloe no it can't. By convention there are certain laws which it is recognised form part of our (uncodified) constitution which are subject to a higher threshold before they are changed or traduced by any law Parliament thinks it can enact.

You have a simplistic understanding of the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament (the subject of your previous reply) which, unless you understand the history and currency of Parliamentary conventions and the role of common law (and indeed international law) is a bit like playing Scrabble with all the big numbered pieces missing. 

Incidentally, in case you weren't aware Charles I has no relevance now because modern law requires Parliament to be held. No chance of "personal rule" by HM.

And there the proof in irony lies: what have we had in the last 18 months apart from personal rule by tinpot despotic idiots like Hancock, Johnson, Zahawi, Javid, inter alios?

They are living proof of the democratic and other fraud perpetrated on the people of this country.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179

@coronanationstreet i'll go with this;

 

The traditional view of Parliamentary sovereignty, as defined by Dicey, prescribes that ‘Parliamenthas […] the right to make or unmake any law whatever’ and ‘no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament’. 

Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@ewloe by quoting only that, you're ignoring the differences (established by common law and precedent between ordinary legislation and legislation deemed to form part of the constitution.

In short "Parliamentary soveriegnty" is only one facet of constitutional law in the UK. 

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

In short "Parliamentary soveriegnty" is only one facet of constitutional law in the UK. 

i'll  make it simple "parliament can make or unmake any law", whatever facets there may be.

 

Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@ewloe Yes that is the simple, to borrow your word, starting point. Having read Dicey and subsequent cases, you'll be aware that senior justices have expressed views that Parliament is not absolutely free to do whatever it likes. In other words, the absolute sovereignty of Parliament comes, or may come, with qualifications reflecting the changing nature of the constitution since Dicey's day. That is the view of certain HL and later SC judges. You're welcome to disagree with them, of course, as are we all.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179

@coronanationstreet these qualifications, you speak of, if they exist at all have not been (in my opinion, cannot be) expressed in a manner that is coherent to me. The only coherent position to me is that sovereignty means exactly what parliament holds, nothing more nothing less.more words than that are not useful.

 

Reply
PartyTime
(@partytime)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 23

@nobody Absolutely it should be. The utilitarian argument that we should sacrifice freedom for the public good has a certain superficial plausibility but in practice what happens is that the "public good" is not determined by a careful cost-benefit analysis, it's determined by whatever rhetoric a politician can get away with, so the "public good" that people make sacrifices for is almost inevitably a public bad.

Also to note, the death rate that was seen with COVID was only that high because people were refused early treatment and even the idea of early treatment was ridiculed. The Spanish nursing home paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833340/#!po=34.9057 suggests that with early treatment using simple medication, the death rate might have been very low, quite possibly below that of regular flu even for the elderly.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @partytime

@nobody Absolutely it should be. The utilitarian argument that we should sacrifice freedom for the public good has a certain superficial plausibility but in practice what happens is that the "public good" is not determined by a careful cost-benefit analysis

climate change is a special case since the public good is reckoned to be survival versus no survival.

Reply
PartyTime
(@partytime)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 23

@ewloe that's certainly how it's presented by the campaign groups,  but again that is rhetoric; a lot of even mainstream climate scientists would disagree with the campaigners. If you believe Nobel Prize-winning climate economist Nordhaus then policy targets of under 3.5 degrees warming will do net economic damage.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179
Posted by: @partytime

@ewloe that's certainly how it's presented by the campaign groups,  but again that is rhetoric

To keep things peaceful I will not comment other than so say that

  1. world govrnments have accepted the threat and are acting  in accordance,
  2. there is no algorithm to know definately, but  all significant climate deniers have thrown in the towel,
  3. hence things will proceed now as if the worst prognostications are cast iron guarentees.

it matter not whether it is true or false, as there will be as many winners as losers that is how markets always balance.

 

Reply
PartyTime
(@partytime)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 23

@ewloe And because like the COVID response it's based on rhetoric rather than cost-benefit analysis, it will do harm to the environment (is already doing so, biofuels mandates are an example) just as the COVID response has done harm to health. And no, there are not as many winners as losers. A small minority has benefited from the COVID response, and the same will be true of climate change repression.

Reply
PartyTime
(@partytime)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 23
Nobody
(@nobody)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 528

@partytime This is why these forms of political action are so attractive to the elite: the issues are just too complicated for all but those involved in the research to understand.  This is why we moved from 1970s politics which were openly about class interests to viruses and climate change, ways the elite can use science to elide their interests with the "public good" which they, really, signify via forms that are exclusive and presume certain forms of capital.

Reply
ewloe
(@ewloe)
Joined: 2 months ago

Posts: 179

Posted by: @nobody It might be a good idea, in light of the pandemic, to form a rule that the principle of freedom is a more significant condition of communal and personal well-being than measures that curtail this condition under the guise of protecting the population from a virus.

You sound like you've been reading  Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand who promoted that idea. I fear you will be swimming against the tide and will be disappointed since the world seems to be headed for an era where emphasis is placed on reduced freedoms. Certainly the freedom to consume prodigiously is rapidly ending, many things point in that direction. The grey haired oldies of XR are lying in front of lorries to prevent deliveries, governments all around the world have been testing their abilities to impose restrictions. Politicians are in the midst of recalibrating to do battle with climate change by defining a common purpose for the common good, this will be the object of Cop26 in Glasgow which is known  colloquially as part of the  the 'ratchet mechanism' to shape the 21st century economy in ways that are clean, green, healthy, just, safe and more resilient.

note; not in ways that particularly involve freedom.

Any idea of personal well-being which depends on damaging the prospects of others is to be seriously challenged, again.

And we no longer have that bulwark of freedom, America,  to set an example, it is usually the case, in world affairs, that were the Anglo-sphere leads, much of the the rest of the world soon follows, and until recently, the Anglo-sphere has pursued a policy of free market capitalism, that is all to be challenged.  It is not the first time the forces of welfarism have done battle with the forces of Conservatism; indeed, most of the the 20th century consisted of little else, but times have changed, in the past the battle was fought to attempt to build a utopia that was always out of reach. But now the battle is different, now the battle is for the survival of swathes of humanity, with hundreds of millions of lives at stake, which depend (it is suggested) on limiting warming to below 2℃. 

It's going to be a big showdown, Nobody. And the covid19 pandemic perhaps will be seen to have been merely the first skirmish, a sort of dry run to test the system.

Reply
Nobody
(@nobody)
Joined: 11 months ago

Posts: 528

@ewloe The real issue is how these factors are calibrated via the representations the state's agents produce.  History shows many terrible things done under the guise of legitimating ideas.  This is partly why I think we need to focus on some guarantee of personal liberties in the face of the usurption of political institutions.  How are institutional agents selected?

  The idea of 'freedom' has a multiplicity of uses and senses.  I only read one of Rand's books, it was interesting but I just think we need to look at in relation to other aspects concerned with community.  Without possibilities there is no personal actualisation and therefore, no developmental mediations, and what concerns me about lockdown, as a political tool, is that it reproduces the conditions that the unemployed face.  The suicide rate, globally, as well as domestic abuse and drug and alcohol use have gone ballistic during this phase for the same reason that their rate has always been high amongst the unemployed.

  In the face of these state-organised encroachments on restricting basic aspects of being-a-person like association and movement, we need to ensure certain basic rights are at the heart of decisions.  The problem is, the people behind this want to remove those aspects because of their constitutive function, this is why they have attacked churches and the like, sources of self or identity, and why the lockdown has been used to erode the basis of moral life: the elite want to erode the basis of any opposition, even just practically, to their strategies.

  In the end, I think Schwab's ideas are bankrupt and inhumane but this has not stopped the proponents of neoliberalism creating a global order in which its forms have been enforced by the institutions of globalism now aligned behind Schwab and Gates and the rest.  With money, you can shape reality to your will and circumscribe the form of human life until it is all accepted, history is quickly forgotten unless there are institutions of transmission which, for labouring populations, who operate via word-of-mouth, are precisely eroded by home-working and the rest of the asocial paraphernalia the state is now attempting to normalise, on it will go.

Reply
PartyTime
(@partytime)
Joined: 3 months ago

Posts: 23

@ewloe "And we no longer have that bulwark of freedom, America,  to set an example" Indeed, this is a problem, although it looks to me like Russia and China may have in some respects stepped in to that role? China is quite strong on climate change rhetoric, while exempting itself from climate change obligations in trade treaties and offering to build coal-fired electricity plants in Turkey.

Reply
Nobody
Posts: 528
(@nobody)
Joined: 11 months ago

There are fundamental liberties that should not be contravened because we have seen what happens when they are and solutions should be framed to sustain certain social and public conditions because they are necessary for human well being but this is precisely why they are eroded by malicious agents and, because institutions are the means by which human beings affect their social reality, these malicious agents tend to form, or infiltrate, institutions, using rhetorics of concern and public good whilst mutilating the forms via which they supposedly realise the ideals.  You end up with damaging outcomes carried out under the guise of public goods.  Medicine itself, particularly psychiatry, is full of such instances.

Reply
1 Reply
CoronanationStreet
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 543

@nobody see my comments above. These rules exist but have been abrogated illegally in my view under the guise of emergency. This was challenged last year but for somewhat technical/timing reasons the case wasn't successful.

Recall the govt was very careful to time (around recesses) the announcement and introduction of the real lockdown legislation (under SIs) to prevent Parliamently scrutiny. Easter 2020 for example, from menory.

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Share: