News4 mins ago
Finally The 1922 Breaks Silence
38 Answers
Bound to rile those with Coviditus but here we go.
"I believe the real purpose of masks is social control - it's time to turn down the fear dial, writes GRAHAM BRADY, Chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee"
https:/
"I believe the real purpose of masks is social control - it's time to turn down the fear dial, writes GRAHAM BRADY, Chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee"
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//You can’t really argue sensibly that enforcing mask wearing is a tactic to subdue the population into … wearing masks.//
I'm not arguing that at all.
The government has removed the legal requirement to wear face coverings. But they have made it quite clear that they might as well not done so because they "expect and recommend" face coverings to continue to be worn in the situations where, until midnight tonight, it is compulsory to do so. Already organisations responsible for those locations have made it clear that they "expect and recommend" the same. I have received half a dozen e-mails from traders who I use, saying just that. London Mayor Khan has gone further and has included the requirement to wear face coverings in TfL's Conditions of Carriage, meaning passengers can be denied travel.
The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote. Anybody who wants a jab can now have one but vaccine centres are running at only about 30% capacity because there are so few takers. So that's largely that - the vaccine rollout is near enough complete or will be very soon.
It is preposterous that people are being expected to comply with quasi-restrictions to protect people who do not want or cannot have the vaccine. Wearing face coverings is the most visible manifestation of those restrictions. Those who want to carry on wearing them are free to do so but I don't want to be branded "selfish" because I refuse to walk about muzzled up supposedly to protect people who will not protect themselves.
This strategy is designed to continue the strategy of imposing fear and anxiety in the population. "It's not safe out there" is what is implied. There's no other reason to encourage face covering use so strongly.
I'm not arguing that at all.
The government has removed the legal requirement to wear face coverings. But they have made it quite clear that they might as well not done so because they "expect and recommend" face coverings to continue to be worn in the situations where, until midnight tonight, it is compulsory to do so. Already organisations responsible for those locations have made it clear that they "expect and recommend" the same. I have received half a dozen e-mails from traders who I use, saying just that. London Mayor Khan has gone further and has included the requirement to wear face coverings in TfL's Conditions of Carriage, meaning passengers can be denied travel.
The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote. Anybody who wants a jab can now have one but vaccine centres are running at only about 30% capacity because there are so few takers. So that's largely that - the vaccine rollout is near enough complete or will be very soon.
It is preposterous that people are being expected to comply with quasi-restrictions to protect people who do not want or cannot have the vaccine. Wearing face coverings is the most visible manifestation of those restrictions. Those who want to carry on wearing them are free to do so but I don't want to be branded "selfish" because I refuse to walk about muzzled up supposedly to protect people who will not protect themselves.
This strategy is designed to continue the strategy of imposing fear and anxiety in the population. "It's not safe out there" is what is implied. There's no other reason to encourage face covering use so strongly.
NJ and why does the govt want to imply that "It's not safe out there"? Is it to impose some sort of fetishistic power-lust on the people, or to try to limit the damage from the virus?
"The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote." - that's your opinion and not a fact ('vanishingly'? what does that mean).
"I don't want to be branded "selfish" because I refuse to walk about muzzled up supposedly to protect people who will not protect themselves." That shows a lack of understanding of how masking works. Masks are more useful in preventing huffing and puffing mask-refusers from squirting their viruses out than stopping other people's viruses from getting in. It might be difficult for you to understand, but keeping your germs to yourself seems to be more effective than trying to keep other people's germs out. In the name of humanity, try to help others rather than huff and puff about your rights.
"The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote." - that's your opinion and not a fact ('vanishingly'? what does that mean).
"I don't want to be branded "selfish" because I refuse to walk about muzzled up supposedly to protect people who will not protect themselves." That shows a lack of understanding of how masking works. Masks are more useful in preventing huffing and puffing mask-refusers from squirting their viruses out than stopping other people's viruses from getting in. It might be difficult for you to understand, but keeping your germs to yourself seems to be more effective than trying to keep other people's germs out. In the name of humanity, try to help others rather than huff and puff about your rights.
//NJ and why does the govt want to imply that "It's not safe out there"? Is it to impose some sort of fetishistic power-lust on the people, or to try to limit the damage from the virus?//
I’ve already said, I don’t know the government’s motives. If they wanted to limit the damage caused by the virus there are lots of things they could have done but didn’t which would have been far more effective. I believe they simply want to maintain an atmosphere of fear and anxiety and listening to people interviewed today who were asked for their views on the relaxations, they’ve succeeded in doing that.
//The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote." - that's your opinion and not a fact ('vanishingly'? what does that mean).//
I believe there are about 2,000 people currently in hospital who have been double jabbed. A little over 35m people have received both doses. So that’s one double jabbed person in hospital for every 18,000 (or thereabouts) . That’s my definition of vanishingly unlikely.
//Masks are more useful in preventing huffing and puffing mask-refusers from squirting their viruses out than stopping other people's viruses from getting in.//
I’m perfectly aware of that and there is no lack of understanding. Wearing a mask only benefits others. The logical conclusion to that state of affairs is that everybody must wear a mask forevermore because the virus is here to stay, it will not be “defeated”, it will not suddenly disappear. I’m not prepared to do that; it’s not a question of rights, it’s a matter of convenience.
This country is going to have to earn to live with the virus in the same way as it has lived with every other potentially lethal pathogen in the past. Hopefully we are coming to the end of this unprecedented (and in my view, in many respects unwise) experiment in government control. I note that some observers, both here and abroad, are referring to England’s relaxation of control as an “experiment”. That is not a valid description. The experiment began sixteen months ago and it is about time it was drawn to a close.
I’ve already said, I don’t know the government’s motives. If they wanted to limit the damage caused by the virus there are lots of things they could have done but didn’t which would have been far more effective. I believe they simply want to maintain an atmosphere of fear and anxiety and listening to people interviewed today who were asked for their views on the relaxations, they’ve succeeded in doing that.
//The chances of anyone double jabbed contracting the virus and developing serious symptoms are vanishingly remote." - that's your opinion and not a fact ('vanishingly'? what does that mean).//
I believe there are about 2,000 people currently in hospital who have been double jabbed. A little over 35m people have received both doses. So that’s one double jabbed person in hospital for every 18,000 (or thereabouts) . That’s my definition of vanishingly unlikely.
//Masks are more useful in preventing huffing and puffing mask-refusers from squirting their viruses out than stopping other people's viruses from getting in.//
I’m perfectly aware of that and there is no lack of understanding. Wearing a mask only benefits others. The logical conclusion to that state of affairs is that everybody must wear a mask forevermore because the virus is here to stay, it will not be “defeated”, it will not suddenly disappear. I’m not prepared to do that; it’s not a question of rights, it’s a matter of convenience.
This country is going to have to earn to live with the virus in the same way as it has lived with every other potentially lethal pathogen in the past. Hopefully we are coming to the end of this unprecedented (and in my view, in many respects unwise) experiment in government control. I note that some observers, both here and abroad, are referring to England’s relaxation of control as an “experiment”. That is not a valid description. The experiment began sixteen months ago and it is about time it was drawn to a close.
//Nailit, think before you post//
I do!
//Don't put silly motives into the hearts of those who disagree with you//
Eh? What you on about?
//You're getting more like Theland every day//
And?
Theland has the nuts to defend himself on AB against a barrage of abuse everyday. I actually admire that!
If Im getting more like Theland everyday, thats not a bad thing...
I do!
//Don't put silly motives into the hearts of those who disagree with you//
Eh? What you on about?
//You're getting more like Theland every day//
And?
Theland has the nuts to defend himself on AB against a barrage of abuse everyday. I actually admire that!
If Im getting more like Theland everyday, thats not a bad thing...
//Those prophesying another lockdown seem to be those who are discontented with the lifting of the present one.//
Indeed, jd. And alarmingly, judging by some of the interviews I saw on the telly today, there are huge numbers of them. Worse than that, I have read reports today of large numbers of people who have developed severe psychological problems over the last year or so. They are suffering agoraphobia and personality disorders which will make it extremely difficult for some of them to resume normal life.
Lord Sumption has described the strategy used by the government in its attempts to control the virus as a gigantic experiment in social control. I used a similar term about a year go when it became clear that the government was absolutely astounded by what it had managed to get away with.
Many people have been seriously damaged by this experiment but it is scarcely mentioned and when it is it is brushed aside as acceptable collateral damage. What it is in reality is a bloody scandal.
Indeed, jd. And alarmingly, judging by some of the interviews I saw on the telly today, there are huge numbers of them. Worse than that, I have read reports today of large numbers of people who have developed severe psychological problems over the last year or so. They are suffering agoraphobia and personality disorders which will make it extremely difficult for some of them to resume normal life.
Lord Sumption has described the strategy used by the government in its attempts to control the virus as a gigantic experiment in social control. I used a similar term about a year go when it became clear that the government was absolutely astounded by what it had managed to get away with.
Many people have been seriously damaged by this experiment but it is scarcely mentioned and when it is it is brushed aside as acceptable collateral damage. What it is in reality is a bloody scandal.
What the malcontents fail to realise is that the easing of restrictions does not affect them. They are still free to self-isolate to their heart's content, they need not leave their homes if they do not wish to, if they venture out there is nothing to stop them practising social distancing, wearing masks or drenching themselves in sanitiser. They can avoid crowded venues, abstain from pubs, restaurants, cinemas etc. Nothing need change for them if they do not wish it.
Latest Posts
Fairer Sex Getting Involved Now; Us...
News9 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Body & Soul21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.