Following the science?

[Protheroe]

At what cost?

Loss of liberty

You're a lifelong Liberal/Liberal Democrat voter I take it then?

There's been very little liberal about the Liberal Party for most of my life.

[Shabby Russian]

At what cost?

Loss of liberty

You're a lifelong Liberal/Liberal Democrat voter I take it then?

There's been very little liberal about the Liberal Party for most of my life.

Tempted to ask which Liberal Party. As far as I am aware there is only one Liberal Party and that is the one whose members refused to accept the merger of the liberals and SDP.

[Protheroe]

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

Liberty is the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom.

If your behaviour impinges or suppresses others' liberty it is by definition illiberal behaviour. For that reason I could argue that total Lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and that a targeted approach that protected the most vulnerable groups would've been preferable and resulted in minimal loss of liberty.

The emerging evidence is that Covid19 is transmitted, in the main, in hospital and care home environments (like other fatal conditions). It doesn't appear to be rife in wider society. I fear we've had our liberty stripped and our economy ruined for something which is a minimal threat to the vast majority of the population. I call that "selfish, irresponsible & unfair". You seem to be under the misapprehension that I somehow support the government in this debacle, I don't.

---

And in the latest news, randy Prof Neil Ferguson has admitted that the UK relied on "quite similar science" to Sweden and that the Swedish authorities had "got a long way to the same effect" of suppression without closing schools, restaurants & bars.

Selfish, irresponsible and unfair would seem to sum up our response quite well.

[Ossian]

You can't really argue - with the benefit of hindsight - that total lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and then try to reinforce that argument with "emerging evidence". Well, not unless you believe in time travel.

My view is that we were too slow too respond and that it was because the government knew we were under-prepared and under-equipped to do so in any meaningful way. We quarantined one boatload of people in a Wirral hospital - more gesture politics than part of any cohesive strategy - and seemed to hope that would do the trick while we bought some time. It didn't work

[Shabby Russian]

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

Liberty is the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom.

If your behaviour impinges or suppresses others' liberty it is by definition illiberal behaviour. For that reason I could argue that total Lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and that a targeted approach that protected the most vulnerable groups would've been preferable and resulted in minimal loss of liberty.

The emerging evidence is that Covid19 is transmitted, in the main, in hospital and care home environments (like other fatal conditions). It doesn't appear to be rife in wider society. I fear we've had our liberty stripped and our economy ruined for something which is a minimal threat to the vast majority of the population. I call that "selfish, irresponsible & unfair". You seem to be under the misapprehension that I somehow support the government in this debacle, I don't.

---

And in the latest news, randy Prof Neil Ferguson has admitted that the UK relied on "quite similar science" to Sweden and that the Swedish authorities had "got a long way to the same effect" of suppression without closing schools, restaurants & bars.

Selfish, irresponsible and unfair would seem to sum up our response quite well.

You are making an argument, although you don't realise it, for an earlier, more draconian lockdown. Sweden is not the example to be quoting in this instance - as their death rates per 1000 population are higher than the vast majority of European countries.

I read an article yesterday about how the Czech Govt were going about opening up their borders. Sweden and UK were the two European countries to which they were applying the strictest conditions on citizens travelling to the Czech Republic. 

The idea that Sweden have somehow been a shining light in how to deal with Covid19, is one that is not shared by most European countries . So when Swedish wonder why they are not free to enjoy a weekend break in Prague, whilst their scandinavian neighbours are they may reflect on the decision their Government took.

[baggy1]

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

Liberty is the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom.

If your behaviour impinges or suppresses others' liberty it is by definition illiberal behaviour. For that reason I could argue that total Lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and that a targeted approach that protected the most vulnerable groups would've been preferable and resulted in minimal loss of liberty.

The emerging evidence is that Covid19 is transmitted, in the main, in hospital and care home environments (like other fatal conditions). It doesn't appear to be rife in wider society. I fear we've had our liberty stripped and our economy ruined for something which is a minimal threat to the vast majority of the population. I call that "selfish, irresponsible & unfair". You seem to be under the misapprehension that I somehow support the government in this debacle, I don't.

This appears to be a bit at odds with the people that had to go to hospital with covid i.e. they had it before admission. Don't get confusing death figures with contraction of this virus. People have contracted it in large group events and in public areas such as buses, trains etc.

---

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

And in the latest news, randy Prof Neil Ferguson has admitted that the UK relied on "quite similar science" to Sweden and that the Swedish authorities had "got a long way to the same effect" of suppression without closing schools, restaurants & bars.

Selfish, irresponsible and unfair would seem to sum up our response quite well.

So your argument is that two of the worst death rates in Europe did similar things by not locking down hard enough or early enough. But you appear to be phrasing it to say that we got to the same point as Sweden when we could have done that without locking down at all. FFS

[Derek Hardballs]

You can't really argue - with the benefit of hindsight - that total lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and then try to reinforce that argument with "emerging evidence". Well, not unless you believe in time travel.

My view is that we were too slow too respond and that it was because the government knew we were under-prepared and under-equipped to do so in any meaningful way. We quarantined one boatload of people in a Wirral hospital - more gesture politics than part of any cohesive strategy - and seemed to hope that would do the trick while we bought some time. It didn't work

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

Liberty is the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom.

If your behaviour impinges or suppresses others' liberty it is by definition illiberal behaviour. For that reason I could argue that total Lockdown has been "selfish, irresponsible & unfair", and that a targeted approach that protected the most vulnerable groups would've been preferable and resulted in minimal loss of liberty.

The emerging evidence is that Covid19 is transmitted, in the main, in hospital and care home environments (like other fatal conditions). It doesn't appear to be rife in wider society. I fear we've had our liberty stripped and our economy ruined for something which is a minimal threat to the vast majority of the population. I call that "selfish, irresponsible & unfair". You seem to be under the misapprehension that I somehow support the government in this debacle, I don't.

This appears to be a bit at odds with the people that had to go to hospital with covid i.e. they had it before admission. Don't get confusing death figures with contraction of this virus. People have contracted it in large group events and in public areas such as buses, trains etc.

---

This argument will always come back to whose liberty? When it impinges or suppresses others liberty it becomes selfish, irresponsible and unfair. 

And in the latest news, randy Prof Neil Ferguson has admitted that the UK relied on "quite similar science" to Sweden and that the Swedish authorities had "got a long way to the same effect" of suppression without closing schools, restaurants & bars.

Selfish, irresponsible and unfair would seem to sum up our response quite well.

So your argument is that two of the worst death rates in Europe did similar things by not locking down hard enough or early enough. But you appear to be phrasing it to say that we got to the same point as Sweden when we could have done that without locking down at all. FFS

As a follow up, isn’t the general public’s lack of exposure to the virus and the lower infection rates due to lockdown? Of course there are going to be more serious cases in hospital and care homes because many of the most seriously ill were taken to hospital and care homes house the most vulnerable. To clarify those places have been exposed to the virus more or because those infected are the most vulnerable. 

Where’s the evidence that the virus has anything to do with hospitals or care homes other than they happen to be the places people are when the infection was brought into them from erm outside in the community. 

People just swanning around in the community infecting each other will inevitably see a spike in infection which means those shielding are left trapped in their house for months because we failed to contain the spread. So yes the liberties of those people is impinged on by those obsessed with getting back to ‘normal’ as quickly as possible without any plan for those less fortunate than themselves.

[Protheroe]

So your argument is that two of the worst death rates in Europe did similar things by not locking down hard enough or early enough. But you appear to be phrasing it to say that we got to the same point as Sweden when we could have done that without locking down at all. FFS

No. My argument is that our ridiculously draconian lockdown has acheived no better results than Sweden's liberal approach.

Like it or not "the science" didn't urge an early Lockdown, so we didn't Lockdown. Individuals were perfectly at liberty to stay at home, but by and large they preferred not to live in fear and didn't until they were told to.

I see we're getting the same stage on this board as we did about the banks being "saved". I argued, and still do that RBS & Lloyds should have been smashed to pieces whilst protecting individual depositors. The method of "saving the banks" if you will.

We're at odds over the method of "saving the NHS". I don't believe the long term costs to our society will be worth it. Many of you do, that's fine.

But I was right about the banks....

[baggy1]

So your argument is that two of the worst death rates in Europe did similar things by not locking down hard enough or early enough. But you appear to be phrasing it to say that we got to the same point as Sweden when we could have done that without locking down at all. FFS

No. My argument is that our ridiculously draconian lockdown has acheived no better results than Sweden's liberal approach.

Like it or not "the science" didn't urge an early Lockdown, so we didn't Lockdown. Individuals were perfectly at liberty to stay at home, but by and large they preferred not to live in fear and didn't until they were told to.

I see we're getting the same stage on this board as we did about the banks being "saved". I argued, and still do that RBS & Lloyds should have been smashed to pieces whilst protecting individual depositors. The method of "saving the banks" if you will.

We're at odds over the method of "saving the NHS". I don't believe the long term costs to our society will be worth it. Many of you do, that's fine.

But I was right about the banks....

How the fuck were you right about the banks in a theoretical situation - we did save the banks therefore we don't know what the result of not saving them would be, it could have been twice as bad, but you are claiming victory based on what? 

"I was right about the banks" - probably one of the most pompous and ridiculous statements you have made with nothing to support your conclusion. Fuck me open a new thread with your points on how right you were about banks if you want but lets not get that far off topic as well.

[Borin' Baggie]

At what cost?

Loss of liberty

You're a lifelong Liberal/Liberal Democrat voter I take it then?

There's been very little liberal about the Liberal Party for most of my life.

Yet they've been infinitely more liberal than the Conservatives in every aspect, from civil rights to the economy. Hence the whole point of #LeastWorst.

Every single liberal economic reform over the last 10 years was due to the Lib Dems being in coalition, the Tories blocked even more of that to stop the implementation of land tax reform. The land-based business levy and the personal allowance are two of the most liberal tax policies in modern Britain, which party backed them? The whole point of the Lib Dem economic policies is to promote competition at the bottom end and make things easier for SMEs, the Tories meanwhile are rooted in the anti-liberal cronyism. And I'm not even going to debate civil liberties as if you genuinely think the Tories have been anything but illiberal and authoritarian you're deluded.