Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

IraHayes · Post by **IraHayes** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:48 am

I think part of the problem with "Conspiracy Theorists" with regards COVID is the fact that as a virus... it ain't that deadly.
Yes, I know it has killed millions but as a percentage of the total infected it is a relatively small amount.
Now, imagine if it killed 30 or 40 ... or even 60% of those it infected. I doubt there would be many who would take any risks at all. I think it is just a differing of opinion on risk assessment and some people believe the risk is minimal while others feel it the risk is far greater.

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:55 am

Cooldude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:46 am Sheer is an adjective, shear is a verb.
Shear is also a noun.

Oh no, it's mutating...

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:06 am

IraHayes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:48 am I think part of the problem with "Conspiracy Theorists" with regards COVID is the fact that as a virus... it ain't that deadly.
Yes, I know it has killed millions but as a percentage of the total infected it is a relatively small amount.
Now, imagine if it killed 30 or 40 ... or even 60% of those it infected. I doubt there would be many who would take any risks at all. I think it is just a differing of opinion on risk assessment and some people believe the risk is minimal while others feel it the risk is far greater.

Yeah, if Covid-19 had a mortality of Sars, 10% or Mers with 34%, we really would be off to the races.

They were both coronavirus that were contained and are now gone. Covid-19 has spread everywhere and is mutating everywhere with most of those mutations being worse than before. The latest Indian one is looking worse than anything so far.

This bug is far from finished on it's Grand Tour and if any mutation evades the current vaccines or antibodies acquired through prior infection, we might be looking at 2020 as one of the good years of the pandemic.

Woody · Post by **Woody** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:10 am

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:44 am
epidemiks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:29 am
samrong01 wrote:
Error404 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:46 am Duh, that was the purpose of covid-19; so that the government could control us and violate our civil liberties and basic human rights all in the name of saving lives.
As you can see there are plenty of people who love the restrictions, who believe the government loves them and are doing whats right, and simply can not see the shear stupidity of repeating the same actions over and over again and seeing no reduction in the virus.
Sheer is an adjective, shear is a verb.

Can you give me a country where a lockdown did not significantly attenuate transmission?
Yes - every country. Can you show me a country where there are or have been lockdowns that have a lower rate of infection than they had a year ago? Of course focus on misspellings rather than the issue.

Australia and New Zealand have both been successful

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:13 am

Woody wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:10 am
samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:44 am
epidemiks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:29 am
samrong01 wrote:
Error404 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:46 am Duh, that was the purpose of covid-19; so that the government could control us and violate our civil liberties and basic human rights all in the name of saving lives.
As you can see there are plenty of people who love the restrictions, who believe the government loves them and are doing whats right, and simply can not see the shear stupidity of repeating the same actions over and over again and seeing no reduction in the virus.
Sheer is an adjective, shear is a verb.

Can you give me a country where a lockdown did not significantly attenuate transmission?
Yes - every country. Can you show me a country where there are or have been lockdowns that have a lower rate of infection than they had a year ago? Of course focus on misspellings rather than the issue.
Australia and New Zealand have both been successful

Ok, apart from Australia and New Zealand, can you name me a single country where lockdowns have lowered transmissions?

epidemiks · Post by **epidemiks** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:18 am

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:44 am
epidemiks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:29 am
samrong01 wrote:
Error404 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:46 am Duh, that was the purpose of covid-19; so that the government could control us and violate our civil liberties and basic human rights all in the name of saving lives.
As you can see there are plenty of people who love the restrictions, who believe the government loves them and are doing whats right, and simply can not see the shear stupidity of repeating the same actions over and over again and seeing no reduction in the virus.
Sheer is an adjective, shear is a verb.

Can you give me a country where a lockdown did not significantly attenuate transmission?
Yes - every country. Can you show me a country where there are or have been lockdowns that have a lower rate of infection than they had a year ago? Of course focus on misspellings rather than the issue.

Vietnam is probably the best example. Immediate and absolute lockdowns of affected areas, and they've managed to almost entirely prevent the virus from spreading in the community. New Zealand, obviously. Victoria, Australia. 12 months ago they were averaging 300+ local transmission cases per day, now they have zero community transmission, zero cases in ICU, zero cases in hospital, and fewer than 10 deaths since October 2020. Israel. etc.

Of course when restrictions end, cases tend to spike again, but not always. Lower death rates also seem to follow. Perhaps the least fit are already dead?

The alternative is what? Have no restrictions, let the virus plough through us and see who's left standing on the other side?

And yes, wild consipiracies must be presented with flawless language.

AzalKH · Post by **AzalKH** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:26 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:06 am
IraHayes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:48 am I think part of the problem with "Conspiracy Theorists" with regards COVID is the fact that as a virus... it ain't that deadly.
Yes, I know it has killed millions but as a percentage of the total infected it is a relatively small amount.
Now, imagine if it killed 30 or 40 ... or even 60% of those it infected. I doubt there would be many who would take any risks at all. I think it is just a differing of opinion on risk assessment and some people believe the risk is minimal while others feel it the risk is far greater.
Yeah, if Covid-19 had a mortality of Sars, 10% or Mers with 34%, we really would be off to the races.

They were both coronavirus that were contained and are now gone. Covid-19 has spread everywhere and is mutating everywhere with most of those mutations being worse than before. The latest Indian one is looking worse than anything so far.

This bug is far from finished on it's Grand Tour and if any mutation evades the current vaccines or antibodies acquired through prior infection, we might be looking at 2020 as one of the good years of the pandemic.

This is it really. The more people are allowed to be infected, and possibly reinfected, the higher the chance of something with a much higher fatality rate develops.

Our situation here right now in Cambodia is proof of that. The older strains didn't really spread that well here, however the Kent strain has managed to spread where the others didn't.

So, worldwide if every country coordinated and went hard lock down for several months mid-2020 this whole pandemic could have been stomped out before these new more contagious, and in some cases more deadly strains evolved. They still aren't -that- bad, but could still turn into something much worse, maybe with a 10% + fatality rate and which current vaccinations won't be effective against.

As we have also seen, it only takes one or two nations to really screw things up too.

Jerry Atrick · Post by **Jerry Atrick** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:00 am

IraHayes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:48 am I think part of the problem with "Conspiracy Theorists" with regards COVID is the fact that as a virus... it ain't that deadly.
Yes, I know it has killed millions but as a percentage of the total infected it is a relatively small amount.
Now, imagine if it killed 30 or 40 ... or even 60% of those it infected. I doubt there would be many who would take any risks at all. I think it is just a differing of opinion on risk assessment and some people believe the risk is minimal while others feel it the risk is far greater.

Good point.

I mean, if one were offered a wager where they could win 99% of the time, I'm sure one could stack some good winnings up. I certainly would.

xandreu · Post by **xandreu** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:46 pm

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:42 am If lockdowns and other measures are successful then why after more than a year is the virus still around? Are you saying the virus is less now than before? That is what is simply not true.

It appears that your definition of success is not the same as most other people's. Nobody ever said that lockdown measures eradicate the virus entirely. They merely reduce the amount of infections over a given period to 'flatten the curve' - meaning that health services are able to cope better with the fewer cases that do emerge. When infections and deaths reduce significantly due to strict lock-down measures, most people would call that a success.

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:42 am The WHO is against lockdowns and they also say that masks are only necessary when you are unable to maintain social distancing but they are ignored. Is this delusion or fact?

It's delusion I'm afraid. The WHO are not against lockdowns. They merely state that governments need to be careful of the economic impact on those more vulnerable in their societies, but they accept that lock-downs are unavoidable.

Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID‑19 transmission by limiting contact between people.

However, these measures can have a profound negative impact on individuals, communities, and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop. Such measures disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups, including people in poverty, migrants, internally displaced people and refugees, who most often live in overcrowded and under resourced settings, and depend on daily labour for subsistence.

WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time.

Governments must make the most of the extra time granted by ‘lockdown’ measures by doing all they can to build their capacities to detect, isolate, test and care for all cases; trace and quarantine all contacts; engage, empower and enable populations to drive the societal response and more.

WHO is hopeful that countries will use targeted interventions where and when needed, based on the local situation.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detai ... -covid-19#

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:42 am You talk about graphs - I have seen a graph, published in The Economist, showing that after lockdowns in Ireland, cases soared. Another delusion?

I fail to see what you are trying to say here. If cases soared after a lock-down, are you saying that they reduced during it? Of course cases will go up after a lock-down. Nobody said they wouldn't. I think you're failing to see the point of a lock-down. You're also failing to see the point of your own argument.

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:42 am There is evidence in the UK that when the government proposed easing lockdowns, the people were against it.

What evidence?

samrong01 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:42 am You could use the word "understand" but in fact the people do not understand - they only know about the fear and panic spread by governments and media.

Should governments not tell their citizens when there is a deadly pandemic raging through their communities?

The rest of your post is just further paranoid delusion not worth commenting on.

Post by **Freightdog** » Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:28 pm

It’s remarkable, some of the ideas and concepts surrounding all of this.

I still hear, not just read, people stating such idiocy as ‘Covid only affects...’

- the old.
Conveniently, these people are ignoring that it is not so. Proportionately, the numbers of younger patients is lower. Not zero. Some of the early deaths among medical staff in the UK were definitely in the younger age range.

- those with underlying health conditions.
Conveniently ignoring the subtle distinction between knowing about a diagnosed underlying health condition, and not knowing. By not having a diagnosed condition, people feel able to throw caution to the wind.

I’m not entirely in agreement with the lockdown measures as they are now. But be careful not to take that out of context.
The idea that banning entirely all alcohol sales is going to stop the spread of COVID, I find somewhat ridiculous. But there probably is some merit in the precaution. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence of people with little self control or personal restraint- these people behaving with utter reckless abandon. There in lies the risk.
But restrictions in alcohol sales is something that is going on in many places, not just Cambodia. Sweden, for instance. Whose initial response to social restrictions was seemingly far less invasive.

Everywhere I go, I’m confronted by signs telling me to social distance. 2meters in one country, 1.5m in a neighbour, and 1m in another neighbour. Apparently, 6ft works just as well, or better. Or worse. Why? Why do we need lines drawn on the floor to remind us (the adult population) to just give each other a bit of space?

Lockdown restrictions In force- everyone (roughly, generally speaking) stays at home, abides. Lockdown restrictions eased in a phased process. People en-masse descend on the nearest shopping centres, as if little had ever changed, except for the wearing of masks. It’s as if people see everything as a stop or run decision. On UK TV now, there is now an ad campaign advising people to take things cautiously as restrictions are eased.

Seriously, we need an ad campaign to tell us this? The events over the past year haven’t been sufficient to install a sense of caution? Apparently, for a very large proportion of society, no.

In Cambodia, as many know, education standards are pretty poor. As such, people’s ability to appreciate the difference between medical treatments is limited. I’m not surprised then to have someone ask me if the vaccination is the cure, and if it’s immediate. When you get similar ideas expressed by people who actually have a fairly high level of professional responsibility in their occupation, in developed countries, I have to wonder exactly how fucked we truly are?
Is population intelligence, or attention span, the problem?

I resent the ongoing restrictions on liberty. But I can temper that with the fact that largely, in most cases, I’m not actually that affected. Except that I have to have a bloody PCR test twice a week, and live a near quarantine existence for a week at a time when I’m down route.
My alcohol intake is pretty low, anyway, but I’d dearly love to go have a couple of pints of draught Guinness.

Sunset clauses in legislation/law making are safeguards against draconian measures becoming permanent. It’s probably the first time in 80years that such levels of restrictions have been imposed on many populations, and those governments have likely had a major moment of pause while they work out how to decide on, and implement a best course of action in a very democratic process.
Other parts of the world don’t have the same restrictions, and managed to implement methods much more quickly. Arguably, more effectively.

The response of one or two contributors in the last 24hrs suggests a cross section of society who need a lot more care, and who are at the same time a greater risk to all. Let’s hope they aren’t too numerous.

Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Re: Covid-19 has worsened a shaky rule of law environment

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: