nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Relaxation of restrictions Part II

Tokyo

Continuation of the "Relaxation of restrictions" from here.

Please note that all mod warnings and threadbans carry through from the previous thread.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rodin

If I was euthanising those "beyond economic use" I can think of a few who would jump the queue before the elderly...

growleaves

I think a phony "war of generations" is beside the point and people should be careful about buying into a false dichotomy and thinking in terms of expediency.

It would be possible to shield the elderly and vulnerable without economic deep-freeze and internal travel restrictions etc.

Cork Boy 53

partyguinness wrote: »

Who said anything about 'compulsory euthanasia'?

Nobody except you.

I mentioned it in my reply to your post. Straight question for you. Would you personally be in favour of euthanasia for people who are "well beyond their economic use"?

[Deleted User]

partyguinness wrote: »

No read it again. I pointed out that this ideology is well established going back several hundred years even if it comes as great shock to some people in 2020.

It also underpins the economics of the 'herd mentality' that you may have heard about in the news. That is what the English ideally wanted to do but figured it was probably bad optics allowing nature take its course.

Between herd mentality in the post and treatsie in your previous you are demonstrating beyond all doubt that you have no clue what you are talking about beyond a few youtube videos and Daily Mail articles

partyguinness

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So how many of that 27000 are people you know?

I know 5 through work that have died (all over 70 with underlying conditions) and I personally know at least 4 others recovering from it at the moment including my wife's aunt.

pjohnson

partyguinness wrote: »

Who said anything about 'compulsory euthanasia'?

Nobody except you.

If they are "beyond economic use" whats your solution? Just leave them waste away?

Does anyone deserve any treatment at all? Or should anyone with an illness be wrote off as "beyond economic use"

normanoffside

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

And most of them by the usual open everything now gang.

I noticed last night that not one of the lockdown gang 'liked' the post from the poor person who has had their surgery cancelled.

How do you feel about that or do you just dismiss them as usual as a 'moaner'?

lawrencesummers

partyguinness wrote: »

No read it again. I pointed out that this ideology is well established going back several hundred years even if it comes as great shock to some people in 2020.

It also underpins the economics of the 'herd mentality' that you may have heard about in the news. That is what the English ideally wanted to do but figured it was probably bad optics allowing nature take its course.

Ideology that goes back 200 years doesn’t make it right, in fact it’s a greater reason for it to be completely wrong. Things were generally totally **** 200 years ago. This might come as a surprise to you, but running water, modern medicine, flushing toilets, safety and security didn’t always exist.

[Deleted User]

partyguinness wrote: »

Hate to break it to you sunshine but there is a whole branch and a well developed branch of economics and theory going back to the 70s dedicated to this policy. It is also fundamental Tory policy in the UK (not saying its right). Hell, you can even see it back in the 1840s. Now I do not have the time to give you a whole treatsie.

Huff and puff and get as indignant as you want but the thinking behind my post is extremely prevalent in government policy all across the world but just not shouted from the rooftops.

Absolute nonsense. Let them die is government policy all around the world?

partyguinness

pjohnson wrote: »

I assume "beyond economic use" also applies to anyone overweight/with asthma/cancer/dialysis etc. regardless of age.

Interesting view. Compulsary euthansia for anyone not contributing to the economy or just send them to a gulag till they expire?

Who said anything about 'compulsory euthanasia'?

Nobody except you.

lawrencesummers

partyguinness wrote: »

No read it again. I pointed out that this ideology is well established going back several hundred years even if it comes as great shock to some people in 2020.

It also underpins the economics of the 'herd mentality' that you may have heard about in the news. That is what the English ideally wanted to do but figured it was probably bad optics allowing nature take its course.

So your another advocate for letting nature take its course?
I presume you have never take a medicine in your life so, always refused antibiotics I presume?

partyguinness

iamwhoiam wrote: »

From someone over 65 , you are making a holy show of yourself .

How so?

lawrencesummers

LiquidZeb wrote: »

You're completely misconstruing my point. What im saying is you pulled up the poster for his reaction to the current death toll for covid and I asked what about the other 50 million deaths per annum. I don't know how you got around to cutting pieta house and cancer research funding other than a half arsed attempt to shame me.

It’s pretty simple.
The rationale that Ignoring the public health guidelines to covid19 will cause unnecessary deaths is being justified by some (you) that people die all the time, and that same rationale can be applied to any initiative that seeks to minimise deaths in preventable areas.

So where does your moral compass sit on it?

LiquidZeb

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Just heard yesterday - there hasnt been a single vaccine developed for any of human corona viruses in our history.

Maintain social distancing.

Wash hands.

Open up.

Well there's never been need for a coronavirus vaccine to such a degree until now. The amount of money that'll be thrown at it before the end will be the largest international effort since WWII.

partyguinness

lawrencesummers wrote: »

You gotta love when people have to go back 180 years for an example that illustrates their ridiculous point

No read it again. I pointed out that this ideology is well established going back several hundred years even if it comes as great shock to some people in 2020.

It also underpins the economics of the 'herd mentality' that you may have heard about in the news. That is what the English ideally wanted to do but figured it was probably bad optics allowing nature take its course.

Penfailed

LiquidZeb wrote: »

No let him off. He's already made his mind up that everyone's a shallow drunk but him. He's the hero.

Hang on. You said I'm the only one talking about pubs. When it's pointed out that it's not true, you agree that it's not true but still manage to turn it into an attack on me. Well done.

growleaves

For all those ranting and raving about restrictions possibly the best course of action is to take off to the likes of Sweden or elsewhere and let the rest of the same majority get on with dealing with reality.

No, people should have their say. Take off to foreign climes yourself if you can't handle disagreement. You're free to take the government line on everything and rubbish anyone with a different opinion but people can talk back too.

lawrencesummers

partyguinness wrote: »

They are the very same generation who did very very nicely out of Thatcher...so much so they kept the Tories in Government for 18 years with Thatcher at the helm for 11 years. Turned quite a lot into landlords over night, privatised the housing stock built in the post war years (by many an Irish labourer) and then left the current generation at the mercy of the private developers who of course bump up their profits to dish out dividends to the Baby Boomers and their pension funds. Nice circle of life going on there.

I don't begrudge pensioners their pensions in the slightest but I do think it is perverse that they always seem to be put first second and third.

Although they ****e on about it often enough the Baby Boomers did not live during any wars..they are generally those born between 1947 and 1963. Again another lucky break. But yet happy enough to send young lads off the Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a more learned commentator put it: The Baby Boomers are like a pig going through a python. Slowly and sucking up all the resources.

If you removed pensioner and replaced it with government you might make semblance of sense, a very small one.

The oldies playing bridge don’t owe anyone a living.

LiquidZeb

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Last year 7.
3 of which were preventable. 4 were not.

If your happy to have people die due to this illness Because “people die all the time” are you also advocating the closure of cancer research? Stopping places like pieta house? Maybe we should allow drink driving again and have no speeding limits, we could have firearms laws like they have in the US.

Where does your moral compass for reducing unnecessary deaths start and finish?

You're completely misconstruing my point. What im saying is you pulled up the poster for his reaction to the current death toll for covid and I asked what about the other 50 million deaths per annum. I don't know how you got around to cutting pieta house and cancer research funding other than a half arsed attempt to shame me.

Dr. Bre

Could the reason be for our conservative roadmap that we are neighbours with the UK who have had most cases in Europe ? The HSE afraid of getting it wrong

pjohnson

I assume "beyond economic use" also applies to anyone overweight/with asthma/cancer/dialysis etc. regardless of age.

Interesting view. Compulsary euthansia for anyone not contributing to the economy or just send them to a gulag till they expire?

lawrencesummers

partyguinness wrote: »

Hate to break it to you sunshine but there is a whole branch and a well developed branch of economics and theory going back to the 70s dedicated to this policy. It is also fundamental Tory policy in the UK (not saying its right). Hell, you can even see it back in the 1840s. Now I do not have the time to give you a whole treatsie.

Huff and puff and get as indignant as you want but the thinking behind my post is extremely prevalent in government policy all across the world but just not shouted from the rooftops.

You gotta love when people have to go back 180 years for an example that illustrates their ridiculous point

partyguinness

seamus wrote: »

The UK is off on its own bus here tbh. Your language around older people is harsh and uncalled for, but I can imagine how incredibly frustrating it must be in the UK to see big parts of the media fawning over Johnson's Nth child and some previously unknown scientist sneaking out for a quickie, rather than talking about the death toll and an economy up in flames.

That is, the media is talking about anything other than the complete and utter inability of England to govern itself.

My language may be deemed harsh I agree but it is just words and as I have just posted it is very much a relevant factor whether we like it or not.

The media over here are a complete disgrace.

iamwhoiam

partyguinness wrote: »

Just another example of the Baby Boomer generation looking after themselves (along with cushy pensions, massive equity, and all the other perks you get at 65).

They have already screwed over the youth with Brexit, hoarded the housing stock, ****ed the environment and now this...oh but if anyone complains oh sure you are just a whiny 'snowflake' phone zombie.

ps I am writing this from England so a slightly different angle.

From someone over 65 , you are making a holy show of yourself .

lawrencesummers

LiquidZeb wrote: »

How many of the 50 million people who die every year do you know? What about all the people who perish due to starvation or dehydration? Something that's probably just as preventable as covid. Do you say that about them too?

Last year 7.
3 of which were preventable. 4 were not.

If your happy to have people die due to this illness Because “people die all the time” are you also advocating the closure of cancer research? Stopping places like pieta house? Maybe we should allow drink driving again and have no speeding limits, we could have firearms laws like they have in the US.

Where does your moral compass for reducing unnecessary deaths start and finish?

partyguinness

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Why not just compulsory euthanize people who are "beyond their economic use " and be done with it? Hang your head in shame after that absolutely disgusting post.

Hate to break it to you sunshine but there is a whole branch and a well developed branch of economics and theory going back to the 70s dedicated to this policy. It is also fundamental Tory policy in the UK (not saying its right). Hell, you can even see it back in the 1840s. Now I do not have the time to give you a whole treatsie.

Huff and puff and get as indignant as you want but the thinking behind my post is extremely prevalent in government policy all across the world but just not shouted from the rooftops.

seamus

partyguinness wrote: »

ps I am writing this from England so a slightly different angle.

The UK is off on its own bus here tbh. Your language around older people is harsh and uncalled for, but I can imagine how incredibly frustrating it must be in the UK to see big parts of the media fawning over Johnson's Nth child and some previously unknown scientist sneaking out for a quickie, rather than talking about the death toll and an economy up in flames.

That is, the media is talking about anything other than the complete and utter inability of England to govern itself.

Ginger n Lemon

Just heard yesterday - there hasnt been a single vaccine developed for any of human corona viruses in our history.

Maintain social distancing.

Wash hands.

Open up.

gozunda

partyguinness wrote: »

Schools and educational institutions should be opened ASAP.

I have now come around to the view that it is completely arseways to screw over children's education and development just to protect the elderly and sick who are well beyond their economic use. Let nature take its course.

End the lock down and if people or certain sections of society are worried let them lock themselves away but let the rest of the world get on with it.

Jeez chxrst. That comment shows a pathetically absymal level of understanding or even logic.

As for you advocating for "the elderly and sick who are well beyond their economic use. Let nature take its course".

That's up there with the poster on this thread who declared that
"people in nursing homes on borrowed time anyway.

The current restrictions have nothing with placing one part of the population over another. They are every thing to do with keeping the numbers infected down and stop health services being overwhelmed.

Kids are getting schooled albeit at home. We are also close to the end of the academic year for most school kids so your rant about screwing with kids education and development is pure hyperbole

And it's not " people or certain sections of society" who are "worried" btw. The restrictions are based on epidemiology and disease control. The same restrictions are put in place by those who are charged with protecting all members of society and not just pandering to the deranged and perpetually outraged because it doesnt suit their world view or something

For all those ranting and raving about restrictions possibly the best course of action is to take off to the likes of Sweden or elsewhere and let the rest of the same majority get on with dealing with reality.

storker

hmmm wrote: »

Wow. And lots of "likes".

I think that tells you all you need to know about those individuals. Time to stop engaging with them. On any subject whatever. Leave them to their miserable little echo chamber where they can cherry-pick data points and congratulate each other on their wisdom. :rolleyes:

.