Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was out in town today and the extent of the damage done to local businesses is starting to show. The Mace around the corner from my usual parking spot, the Belfast themed coffee shop across the road from that, my favourite restaurant, several designer clothes shops and so on. A local chain, Easons (like a better Irish version of WHSmith) has packed up and left too. The high street is fethed.

The highstreet was messed up before between rent rates and tax raising costs and online stealing sales its been an area many retailers were struggling with. Corona hasn't caused this on its own, it has accellerated what was already going on.

That said I expect to see a burn and replace approach with
restaurants and other food outlets. Ergo a stready loss until restrictions fully lift and then a rebirth in some areas.

We are still well in the danger zone and it won't be until a vaccine or massifevtrack and trace efforts so thatvwe remove the threat, untilvwe properly come out. Bonus is that once the threat is gone in theory, recovery should be at a good pace

Yeah we need much fewer than 1/2000 people to have the virus to be safe...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.

QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?

And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.

LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.

QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?

And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.

LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.

Yeah I think you are missing the point here. These are things decent people do because of societal norms. The government didn't make these rules - society did - the people did. There probably was 0 opposition to laws about needed to be clothed in public. The government is implementing these procedures at will is the issue (there was no vote on the issue) - especially if it violates your rights like in the case of forcing people to not leave their houses ect. There is a lot of opposition on that.

I mean, we vote in people to implement these things so we are not required to vote on every single thing.
So we voted in people who instigated this thing soooo, yes we did have a say.

Xenomancers, are you suggesting that wearing a mask—a slight inconvenience that literally saves lives and helps society control a pandemic—isn’t something decent people do because of societal norms?

It sure looks like it to me. And people who refuse to wear masks are fairly equivalent to people who commit negligent manslaughter or defecate in public, both things decent people don’t do, things are against societal norms.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.

I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.

Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.

vice versa in switzerland covid has beaten the general flue within 1 month in deadlyness.

And considering that due to mers and sars we can gather that about a 3rd of the survivors will carry away permanent lungdamage, and that in china a study found 77% of people suffering from such grey patches, i rekon that we will have a lot more people suffering from longterm effects this time around .

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/06/02/covid-health-effects

In the same article...
"it's estimated as few as 5% and as many as 80% of Covid-19-positive patients are asymptomatic or have mild cases of the illness that take days or weeks for symptoms to emerge—and many have no symptoms after two weeks,"
Wow...that is quite a range for the estimated asymptomatic cases.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.

QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?

And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.

LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.

No the government tells me what I must not do, in order that I don't violate the natural rights of another, or break any social contracts. They are not there to tell me what I MUST do.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:Ah yes, the old 'its not to stop you getting it, it's to stop it if you have it'.. because a piece of old t shirt stretched over your mouth will let virus in, but not out... I see everyone conveniently ignored my pointing out of Spain's new rise in cases, despite masks being mandatory in all public spaces, including outside.

That piece of cloth reduces the range of how far you expelled breath can go quickly. That means infected microdroplets in the air your exhaled have a lower chance of infecting others. It's lowers the chance of infections and can't solve the problem completely. It why you don't cough into people's faces but for breathing in general. It doesn't stop the virus but it slows down its transport layer, so to speak.

Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.

And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.

But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:As for the folks who say 'its just a mask' 'its just a minor inconvenience' I say, well 4 Months ago it was 'its just a few weeks of lockdown' 'its just fines for folks who don't obey' 'its just a few more weeks' 'just until we get the R rate down' 'just mandatory masks on public transport' 'just mandatory masks in all shops'... Where does it stop? At the start it was flatten the curve. Well how damn flat does it need to be? The goalposts keep moving. The restrictions keep creeping.

Because four months ago people didn't take it seriously and a lot of places got a bunch of people infected. If people were wearing masks, kept a distance of 2 to 3 metres, and kept clean then things would have been better four months ago but they didn't and thus we got the situation we had. Look at the stats for daily new cases:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Stuff's looking really good because measures were implemented (or as you call it: the government restricting your rights) that seemed to have worked. And if things keep going that way then at some point it will be possible to safely ease restrictions. If people don't take it seriously now and start getting lazy about it then the numbers might increase again and you end up needing to implement harsher restrictions again. Look at the curve of the Chech Republic as an example:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/czech-republic/

After they mandates face coverings the numbers started to fall, and once they lifted restrictions numbers started to rise again (kinda with about a month of delay after policy changes in either direction):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Czech_Republic

You don't want to relax restrictions when it looks safer but when it looks safe enough. There's a difference. That's why restrictions keep on being extended. People are being idiots and "feel safe enough" because some numbers fall a bit and they think that's all that needed.

And all the while no good news is ever shown on TV. The low infection rate, the low death rate. The fact that the NHS never got anywhere near being overwhelmed, the fact that at peak there were about 4000 people on ventilators, and now there are sub 200. And still no recovered rates, despite being promised by beginning of June, and if anything slightly positive can't avoid being shown, they immediately follow it with the obligatory banging of the 'second wave' drum. Well where is this second wave? We've had at least 4, 5 events that the doomsayers claimed would herald it...

All the good news you listed happened because people were doing their part. Once that stops the good news will start to turn into bad news again and you get a whole cycle of where you need to increase restrictions because people started partying too early.

Reasoning like yours is mind bending. Like an impatient kid who's wants that cookie, eats the too hot cookie, burns their mouth, and then complains that eating cooled cookies now hurts and and how waiting until their mouth heals is a restriction of their rights. Then by the time they are healed, there's a new batch of hot cookies and everything repeats :/

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Xenomancers, are you suggesting that wearing a mask—a slight inconvenience that literally saves lives and helps society control a pandemic—isn’t something decent people do because of societal norms?

It sure looks like it to me. And people who refuse to wear masks are fairly equivalent to people who commit negligent manslaughter or defecate in public, both things decent people don’t do, things are against societal norms.

What absolute nonsense. You clearly dont know what literally means. Masks don't 'save lives.' their usefulness is unclear at best.

And that second part is such a ridiculous analogy, there's nothing else that really needs said on it

We started easing restrictions almost 2 months ago. No increase in cases. Masks were made mandatory in shops 3 days ago. Correlation between mask mandates and case numbers does not prove causation in any way.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, we vote in people to implement these things so we are not required to vote on every single thing.
So we voted in people who instigated this thing soooo, yes we did have a say.

Scuse me but that is not true for all here


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:it's less about the enforcement and more about the principle, which indeed , does set a rather dangerous precedent in behavoural patterns, including a predisposed obedience without room for questioning.

And I'd say that type of reasoning about behavioural patterns and obedience is removed from reality when it comes to wearing simple cloth masks in public. It's not like they are forcing citizens to drag non-mask-wearers off the streets or establish an surveillance state. It's a simple need to help reduce infections. I really wonder how people who worry about that being some governmental scheme even live their regular lives when you consider all the other laws and restrictions that apply every day in civilised society? I imagine that as an adult one can distinguish the difference between the government asking for something simple—like wearing masks—and an actual slide into authoritarianism. And also where one's fundamental ideals in regard to personal freedoms and everybody's (hopefully short term) practical needs intersect when it comes to cloth masks and how that simply shouldn't be a big deal for a functioning adult human being.

But I also wonder why people with that type of conspiratorial adjacent thinking don't jump on the chance to wear a mask? After all they actually help against facial recognition tech. And wouldn't that be useful to actually escape that type of real surveillance tech that's being used in practice? One doesn't even need to imagine something about it in the potential future. Surveillance cameras are actually being used around us in everyday life.

I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.

News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.

QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?

And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.

LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.

"


No the government tells me what I must not do, in order that I don't violate the natural rights of another, or break any social contracts. They are not there to tell me what I MUST do.

No its not, by not wearing a mask, when its known you can be a carrier with not symptoms and still transmit, you are violating the rights of another person tooo.....live.
People should wear masks because its the right thing to do for your fellow countryman, anything else is beyond selfish, its "feth you, got mine

Just remember that the government telling you you must wear clothes in public or that you have to stop at a stop sign is a huge government overreach

 skyth wrote:
Just remember that the government telling you you must wear clothes in public or that you have to stop at a stop sign is a huge government overreach

Quite sure that the government generally doesn't have to Step in when local people solve the issue themselves.

No I'm not. We don't just assume everyone is a biohazard. In a pandemic, the sick are quarantined. The healthy are not. Regardless of whether asymptomatic carriers are a possobility. By that logic, anyone with who goes out with a cold or the flu should be required to mask too, lest they violate someones rights. which I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were to be an outcome of this bs. Grotty face masks in public: the new normal.

Being an unknowing asymptomatic carrier and infecting someone else, while unfortunate, is not you violating their rights. Violations occur through malice or negligence, that being knowing acts of the person. Anything else is an accident.

It is though, you are violating their right to go out and be safe and be healthy
It is again just like drunk driving, you are, with your gakky, selfish decision, putting other people in danger because you dont want to inconvenience your own damnself

I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.

Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.

Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.

Depends, if you are knowingly doing it then yes even if you are asympthomatic you still are responsible, if not then , have you taken the necessary prcaussions ?
That is the question legally.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.

Repeating a lie doesn't start to make it true.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.

Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.

Yes it is, if you know that there is a possibility you have it(which is all of us, we can all have it and not know), and have not done the necessary precautions, you are violating someone's rights.
Wear a mask, it isn't hard to do.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm fairly sure I've already covered why that analogy is rubbish, but hey ho.. drunk driving is a conscious decision..you are both negligent and malicious when doing so.

Going out while being an asymptomatic carrier is neither of those things.

Yes it is, if you know that there is a possibility you have it(which is all of us, we can all have it and not know), and have not done the necessary precautions, you are violating someone's rights.
Wear a mask, it isn't hard to do.

We could also (statistically more likely seeing as 99.95% of the UK population doesn't have it..) not have it..

What does it's difficulty have to do with anything?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Why don't you engage my argument instead of just making stupid assertions?

For something to be a violation, a person has to consciously and knowingly perform an action. If they don't know they have the virus, they can't knowingly violate someone else's rights.

Again that is not as clear in the Face of the issue beeing dependant upon responsibility meaning that you can get your backside validly handed to you for neglect

The logical end point of that does not allow the premise to stand, unless of course you're going to mandate everyone masking up to stop the flu next winter, which I an now no longer loathe to put past this sham of a government.

Lol the flu doesn't have nearly as bad of transmission and does not leave you possibly crippled for your life.
This virus does.

You two should Stop arguing in absolutes ....

The degree to which the disease is lethal or not is irrelevant.
You are still potentially violating someone's right to be 'safe and healthy' by your own definition.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The degree to which the disease is lethal or not is irrelevant.
You are still potentially violating someone's right to be 'safe and healthy' by your own definition.

Proportionality is a thing.

Indeed. And we definitely haven't applied it correctly here.

By the by. There's not much I can do. My government has taken us on this course, shambolic as it has been. They have used a sledgehammer to crack the coronavirus nut, and continue to bludgeon it despite a scalpel now clearly being required.