Covid - What would YOU do?

[Saracen999]

Yes, and it was World leading medical and scientific experts advocating eugenics during the 1930s.

Locking up 'vulnerable' minorities for the greater good is a slippery slope. Who decides who is vulnerable? Everyone over 55? Everyone from a Black Asian Minority Ethnic community? Everyone with a BMI over 27.5? Everyone with an income less than £55,000? Essentially, anyone who isn't me!

I accept Hexus can lean more to the right than I prefer but I am (properly) shocked at how quickly the most expensive lesson in history is being forgotten.

Valid concerns, but I'm not seeing anything here that suggests a political inclination anything like that leading to Nazi eugenics.

That said, anything that sets up laws, or precedents, leading to significant curtailing of civil liberties is inherently dangerous. The slippery slope includes that even if we assume the current government is benign, and that the current pandemic situation justifies otherwise unjustiable measures, it eases the path for a subsequent government that isn't benign.

Oh, two other points.

HEXUS has a mix. There are those of a right-leaning tendency for sure, but also, a good few Corbyn fans, and he certainly can't be accused of being right wing.

Secondly, abuses of civil liberties are not the exclusive preserve of the lunatic fringe right. We shouldn't forget the Nazi's, but we shouldn't forget Stalin (or many others) either. The far left history is lettered with murdering, autocratic scum, as well as the far right.

I would argue that it's not either left or right philosophy that is open to abuse, but give any selfish, egocentric nut-job some power and they inevitably want more, no matter how much they have, and regardless of the political tendencies they use and abuse to justify it.

[Saracen999]

Oh, and the pandemic is a very bad situation, lacking recent historical parallels.

There are no good options, and sometimes, we need to take the least bad route, hopefully with precautions (like Parliamentary votes) to protect against slippery slopes.

[TeePee]

Yes, and it was World leading medical and scientific experts advocating eugenics during the 1930s.

Locking up 'vulnerable' minorities for the greater good is a slippery slope. Who decides who is vulnerable? Everyone over 55? Everyone from a Black Asian Minority Ethnic community? Everyone with a BMI over 27.5? Everyone with an income less than £55,000? Essentially, anyone who isn't me!

I accept Hexus can lean more to the right than I prefer but I am (properly) shocked at how quickly the most expensive lesson in history is being forgotten.

I'm not sure why you quoted me, I'm against locking people up...

People who believe themselves to be vulnerable should be able to self-isolate, and provided the support they need if they choose to do so.

[matts-uk]

I'm not sure why you quoted me, I'm against locking people up...

I quoted you because you made an 'appeal to authority' attempting to legitimise the GBR. The warm words merely disguise the reality. Pursuing herd immunity without an effective vaccine would leave, 'people who believe they are vulnerable,' with a Hobson's choice (no choice).

Valid concerns, but I'm not seeing anything here that suggests a political inclination anything like that leading to Nazi eugenics.

In 1933 Hitler made no mention of systematic mass murder in his manifesto - The German population would never have voted for him and it hadn't even occurred to him at the time. The slide down the slope was little by little. Over the course of 10 years what started as simple prejudice, became segregation, persecution, relocation and finally extermination.

Eugenics provided the Nazis with an appearance of scientific legitimacy, helping to persuade the German population the escalating atrocities were right and ethical. The echo chamber of the Nazi regime marginalised and drove out the dissenters, slicing and dicing public opinion one minority at a time. By 1942 Hitler became convinced his regime could get away with industrialised genocide. Post 1945 the German population, who considered themselves civilised and educated, wonders how they ever consented to barbarism?

German scientists were not the only scientists advocating Eugenics during the 1930s. What the Nazis did was show the rest of the World how easily and how far down the slope a civilised and democratic society can fall.

HEXUS has a mix. There are those of a right-leaning tendency for sure, but also, a good few Corbyn fans, and he certainly can't be accused of being right wing.

I did not say anyone (here) is right wing. I would say Hexus appears to be as centre/right as one might expect from an IT/technology forum. I happen to be centre/left and find some of the opinions a little more authoritarian than I am comfortable with. That is all.

Secondly, abuses of civil liberties are not the exclusive preserve of the lunatic fringe right. We shouldn't forget the Nazi's, but we shouldn't forget Stalin (or many others) either. The far left history is lettered with murdering, autocratic scum, as well as the far right.

I did not say abuses of civil liberties are anyone's exclusive political preserve. Quite the opposite. I am saying demographic prejudice is morally abhorrent, full stop.

I would argue that it's not either left or right philosophy that is open to abuse, but give any selfish, egocentric nut-job some power and they inevitably want more, no matter how much they have, and regardless of the political tendencies they use and abuse to justify it.

My politics are best described as, 'Orwellian.' Similar to those of the author rather than the depictions within his novels. Orwell described himself as a socialist but was predominately against totalitarianism in all it's forms. I would describe myself as pro-community and against antisocial-ism.

Behind the GBR is a Neo-Liberal agenda. I would argue that traditional politics is failing due to Neo-Liberalism having embedded itself across traditional party boundaries. Blair turned out to be more Thatcherite than Thatcher was. Whichever party we might choose to vote for, it's infested with selfish, parasitic, scum.

Your original question was a good one, by the way. I didn't answer it as I am yet to be convinced the economic status-quo deserves any protection at all. Maybe a review of the post war consensus is in order.

[james_]

Someone enact the Godwin's law protocols, pronto!

[Saracen999]

.... Whichever party we might choose to vote for, it's infested with selfish, parasitic, scum.

....

Or as I've often said, the central problem with politics is that whoever you vote for, you end up electing a politician. (Note 1]

I could argue that that's Trump's greatest feature. He's not a politician. He's almost anti-politician, and I suspect that is what appeals to a large part of those voting for him. But regardless of what he isn't, there's also unfortunately what he is, which is a right </insert your choice of Anglo-Saxon expletive/>.


Note 1 - I wish I could claim to have invented that but I, ummmm, borrowed it.

[Zhaoman]

I could argue that that's Trump's greatest feature. He's not a politician. He's almost anti-politician, and I suspect that is what appeals to a large part of those voting for him. But regardless of what he isn't, there's also unfortunately what he is, which is a right </insert your choice of Anglo-Saxon expletive/>.

I feel like that's what he wants the public and his supporters to think but if anything he is a perfect distillation of a politician - if the stereotype of a politician is someone who feigns the touch of the common man and will say anything to get into power and stay there.

[chockimon]

Look at what Sweden did. Common sense prevails and their economy hasn't been destroyed. Shame the same can't be said about ours.


UK national debt highest since 1960s after record October borrowing – as it happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-business-live

[ik9000]

nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Leslie Simpson]

There aren't any untested vaccinations available. They're only released after a LOT of testing.

I am additionally testing those who are the first to receive this vaccine. It seems that the results are good so far, but the news has already passed that a new COVID-19 strain has been found in the UK. In short, while the vaccine was found, this infection mutated. A vaccine will be made from the new strain - there will be a third strain. It will be an endless process, it seems to me.

[kalniel]

I am additionally testing those who are the first to receive this vaccine. It seems that the results are good so far, but the news has already passed that a new COVID-19 strain has been found in the UK. In short, while the vaccine was found, this infection mutated. A vaccine will be made from the new strain - there will be a third strain. It will be an endless process, it seems to me.

Partly - welcome to biology. But also it's thought the existing vaccines will still be effective against the new strain - your body doesn't produce anti-bodies tailored exactly to a single virus strain, instead there's some variability there so even if the virus mutates a bit the anti-bodies still work. What is cool is that we're getting faster at producing new vaccines - BioNTech reckon it's about 6 weeks now, which is astonishing.

[ik9000]

I am additionally testing those who are the first to receive this vaccine. It seems that the results are good so far, but the news has already passed that a new COVID-19 strain has been found in the UK. In short, while the vaccine was found, this infection mutated. A vaccine will be made from the new strain - there will be a third strain. It will be an endless process, it seems to me.

It depends as the vaccine targets certain aspects of the virus, certain molecular chains, receptors etc. Different strains of the same core virus often share a lot of these, so the antibodies and T-cells etc can still be effective against them provided they can still recognise and latch onto the cells in the required way.

[Kovoet]

When it comes to politics I have never trusted any of them. They are all as corrupt as one another and in it for themselves. Yes it's not the right way to feel but anyone who knows me I don't hide in what I believe in. This virus obviously exists but no one ( outside the higher order shall I say) knows the real truth.
I for one will not take the vaccine but will wait and see what happens. Work wise I have been fortunate enough to have worked right through this but have been extra careful at work and made sure my staff have as well. So far no one is our company has had anything.
But what a I will say be safe people and this virus is going to break a lot of people in a lot of ways. I have a wife who is in tears because she cannot see her son for Christmas for the time so it's not a good thing for anyone.

[kompukare]

There aren't any untested vaccinations available. They're only released after a LOT of testing.

On the other hand, this vaccine's testing was rushed for understandable reasons.
The advice for people with allergies should really have been there from the start since PEG sensitivity is not something new:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyet...Health_effects
Also, for obvious ethical reasons, aren't most trial volunteers healthy or mostly healthy?
So I can understand that people with pre-existing conditions might be reluctant to be first the to get the vaccine (although this group might be most at risk from Covid itself).

However, waiting for evidence that the vaccine is safe for everyone is likely to take a very long time. So while obviously, in terms of public health, if Covid has a mortality rate of X while the vaccine has one of X/1000 or lower there is no question about which safer at the population level - but people are funny like that.

[ik9000]

On the other hand, this vaccine's testing was rushed for understandable reasons.
The advice for people with allergies should really have been there from the start since PEG sensitivity is not something new:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyet...Health_effects
Also, for obvious ethical reasons, aren't most trial volunteers healthy or mostly healthy?
So I can understand that people with pre-existing conditions might be reluctant to be first the to get the vaccine (although this group might be most at risk from Covid itself).

However, waiting for evidence that the vaccine is safe for everyone is likely to take a very long time. So while Obviously, terms of public health, if Covid has a mortality rate of X while the vaccine has one of X/1000 or lower there is no question about which safer at the population - but people are funny like that.

yes quite, and there is a balance to be struck on how long that is allowed to go on, but just outright refusing to ever have a vaccine because of <insert conspiracy BS of your choice> and such like is just not sensible.

[Saracen999]

If people lack the intelligence to listen to good science should society bother with them at all? As far as I'm concerned people refusing to take the vaccine should be made to or there will be an increasing need to shove them off somewhere the sun doesn't shine. Immunisation works on everyone getting the vaccine. The idiots who refuse to take it are putting the rest of us at risk.

As I understand it, herd immunity requires a sufficient percentage to be immunised, but that that's around the 70-80% mark. In a perfect world, the virus would cease to exist but like most viruses, we haven't got close to that. The actual aim is to keep incidence low enough to make it handleable by medical facilities.

Where you lost me is in forcing people to take it. That strikes me as a slippery slope for several reasons.

First, what if the objection is religious? I don't personally agree with those religious objections, but I do support the right of those that hold them to hold them.

Secondly, at the moment, I won't be taking it. Why? Because as of last week, the advice from my doctor was it's probably a good idea but that they're still awaiting detailed data on the effect on compromised immune systems. Due to the nature of the vaccines, it's probably safe, and if that's confirmed, I'll take it. If. And when.

Thirdly, it violates a supremely important principle: we do not force medical procedures, especially invasive ones, on anybody that has the mental capacity to understand the issue, and it's implications. And capacity is presumed to exist, unless it can be proven, probably to a court, that it does not. That right to refuse exists even where it might be the only thing capable of saving the refusenik's life. Like a transplant. Or chemotherapy.

Not only is that morally right, but pragmatically right, for the avoidance of "thin end of wedge" or "slippery slope" issues.

If we allow forced vaccination now, does it open the door for later decisions where someone in power decides that some or all of us need some other forced medical procedure that isn't so benign. Be very careful what precedents you set.

Of course, while I'm entitled to refuse treatment even when it's beneficial to me, the other side of the coin is when doing so is detrimental to others.

It may be the case that refusing vaccination is our right, but has consequences. For example, right now, France has somewhat reopened it's borders to some travellers from the UK, providing they have a recent negative test. The consequence of refusing a test, and perhaps the next stage is if you aren't vaccinated, is refusal of entry permission. That could potentially be extended to, oh, refusal of right of entry to shops. Don't like not being allowed in? Either get vaccinated, or order for home delivery.

It's not a good idea to force medical procedures on the unwilling, but society does have a right to protect itself from those that won't take steps to protect everyone.