Jump to content

They're Racist and We Know It - A UK Politics Thread


polishgenius

Recommended Posts

No further limitations on peoples behavior are necessary on the day we just jumped to 96 deaths? 

We've been going on about 96 deaths and  how it was completely avoidable in a  different case for 30+ years. But now we are happy just to hand wave it away as if its nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It’s a level of intervention I’m not comfortable with and I don’t think it should be hand waved as a necessary step, because it’s far from clear that it is.

As usual everyone’s taking the worst possible interpretation of your views, but this shouldn’t really be that controversial; why announce now? Why September? Why mention ‘nightclubs’, what other establishments should start prepping for this? This needs scrutiny like everything else the government do. As I mentioned before IF we got nearer the time and we just couldn’t curb cases without doing stuff like this, AND it was announced and the reasoning behind it explained, (for example, double vaccinated people don’t necessarily stop spreading it, they just don’t suffer bad effects as much, so does it matter who does the spreading?), then maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

As usual everyone’s taking the worst possible interpretation of your views, but this shouldn’t really be that controversial; why announce now? Why September? Why mention ‘nightclubs’, what other establishments should start prepping for this? This needs scrutiny like everything else the government do. As I mentioned before IF we got nearer the time and we just couldn’t curb cases without doing stuff like this, AND it was announced and the reasoning behind it explained, (for example, double vaccinated people don’t necessarily stop spreading it, they just don’t suffer bad effects as much, so does it matter who does the spreading?), then maybe.

This is the point really, it’s the lack of transparency around decisions and just the general sense of not having a plan which is really at the heart of this.

It’s pretty clear this is being used as a scare tactic to get young people to get the jab, because we are hitting the point where we’ve given a jab to almost everyone who wants one. 
 

It might be that they never follow through on this threat but they might. 
 

The point is, what is the goal here? We were told once the vulnerable were vaccinated then that would prevent most of the deaths and hospitalisations.. and it’s pretty much true. Deaths are absolutely minimal from the virus now and hospitalisations are far fewer and less severe. 
 

But then the goal changed, and it’s not clear exactly what we are aiming for anymore. If they want everyone to be vaccinated then people need to know why and what is the end point. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That’s very different to requiring someone to have a medical procedure to access a service. 

Why?  There are myriad reasons to deny people certain "services" that are reasonable.  You've already indicated that it is reasonable for the government to require a negative test in order to access that service.  This is obviously based on the premise that the government has an interest in restricting access based on the objective to limit the spread of the virus.  After that we're just talking matters of degrees.  And as as long as there's widespread availability for the vaccine, denying access to a superfluous service is hardly akin to the very real threats and force commonly used by the government to compel citizens to comply when we're talking about "coercion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If it was mandatory then you might have a point. 

I don't know about the UK but there are state laws that require children to be vaccinated for a number of things in order to attend school, albeit it varies by state.  I don't have a problem with that, and most don't either unless you delve into the Jenny McCarthy realm of crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The September thing is presumably because viruses get worse in the winter. The government is still working with this thinking, Johnson mentioned it in his press conference yesterday.

It’s not mandatory to have a measles vaccine, to go to school or to go to a nightclub. The issue’s between the government and nightclubs, not the government and unvaccinated people who want to go to nightclubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivers Licenses aren't mandatory to drive a vehicle in the UK?  We here in the US and you all there in the UK have loads of government mandatory rules and laws to protect the general public.  Why is this one, which is protecting the general public from proven illness and death and all the very many associated immiserations that cannot be denied that place terrible burdens on the general population as a whole different?

What's going to do it is this refusal because it is now clearly cratering the economies of the wealthiest countries of the world.  While death and illness and impoverishment and immiseration for the average person won't get Them to do it, cratering the global and local markets will.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why there is confusion that such a requirement is perfectly reasonable with ample precedent that only constitutes "coercion" in the broadest definition of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, john said:

The September thing is presumably because viruses get worse in the winter. The government is still working with this thinking, Johnson mentioned it in his press conference yesterday.

It’s not mandatory to have a measles vaccine, to go to school or to go to a nightclub. The issue’s between the government and nightclubs, not the government and unvaccinated people who want to go to nightclubs.

September is because that's when everyone who wants a vaccine will (in theory) have had the chance to get one. The younger people were last on the list and so won't have had a second shot yet (and may not have even had a first in some cases), but by September they supposedly will. As Ian Dunt puts it in his article opposing vaccine passports, young people are being "bullied into compliance for something they haven’t even failed to do yet."

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/07/20/covid-passports-were-a-mistake-before-and-theyre-a-mistake-now/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not sure why there is confusion between ‘things that are mandatory to do stuff’ and ‘get a medical procedure in order to access regular goods and services’

 

It's not regular goods and services, it's effing nightclubs. And it's not too much to ask not to risk a lethal illness for yourself and others when you want to go there. I  planned to say it's common sense but then I remembered the last couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kiko said:

It's not regular goods and services, it's effing nightclubs.

“And other crowded venues”. 

C’mon guys, whichever side of this you’re on, is anyone really claiming this is totally run of the mill announcement? They haven’t even mentioned what things might look like in September other than they predict it will have peaked by then, so understandably people might have thought “hmm … freedom day … peak before September … sounds like we might be allowed to do stuff in September.” And then denying people entry to nightclubs completely out of the blue, no “well, we may struggle to keep numbers down when we head back toward winter so maybe there’ll be more restrictions needed” … followed by “OK we can’t sustain this amount of people so we may need to deny those especially at risk entry”. You know, a staged announcement, backed up with some evidence? Some reasoning? Some logic?

A lot of people have put forward potential reasons it might need to happen here, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but why do we find ourselves conjecturing at all? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kiko said:

It's not regular goods and services, it's effing nightclubs. And it's not too much to ask not to risk a lethal illness for yourself and others when you want to go there. I  planned to say it's common sense but then I remembered the last couple of years.

Tell that to young people. I’m sure nightclubs is not something that people on an ASOIAF forum do a lot.

But then why is proof of a negative test not enough ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Heartofice said:

Tell that to young people. I’m sure nightclubs is not something that people on an ASOIAF forum do a lot.

But then why is proof of a negative test not enough ?

Off the back of the report that they might start charging for LFT’s in August, I did wonder if these things are costing them a pretty penny and they’re looking to wean us off them to save money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Denvek said:

September is because that's when everyone who wants a vaccine will (in theory) have had the chance to get one. The younger people were last on the list and so won't have had a second shot yet (and may not have even had a first in some cases), but by September they supposedly will. As Ian Dunt puts it in his article opposing vaccine passports, young people are being "bullied into compliance for something they haven’t even failed to do yet."

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/07/20/covid-passports-were-a-mistake-before-and-theyre-a-mistake-now/

Good article, I don’t tend to ever agree with Dunt but I do here.

 

5 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Off the back of the report that they might start charging for LFT’s in August, I did wonder if these things are costing them a pretty penny and they’re looking to wean us off them to save money.

Hmm maybe, I suspect it’s really because this is all bluster to push younger people to get the jab and then they can do another 180 in Sept when infection numbers drop. 
Guess it’s also that tests might be easier fake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think announcing it now gives them the option of actually mandating it in September.  although if things turn out better than expected they might decide its not needed and can U Turn.  

 

Doing it to Nightclubs first is as way of testing the water mainly effecting people who don't normally vote Tory so they don't care if it pisses the young people off.  If it gets general support from their voter base they are then able to to make it a requirement for things their voter base does.  Its a less risky way of doing it.

They said Nightclubs and large mass gatherings like sporting events.  and they reserve the right to expand this to other areas as needed later.

 

I can see both sides to this.  Yes I personally don't want to mix with unvaccinated people and want everyone to take the vaccine.  I don't want to increase my risk of catching it by being with the unvaccinated.  So on that level I would be personally happy with a Mandatory Vaccine thing.  On the other hand forcing people to get vaccines is very wrong and often can work against getting the masses vaccinated.  People are much more suspicious when they are told to do something or else.  people don't like that.  especially given the conspirisary theories with COVID this is not a good thing.   

It could also lead to people getting fake vaccines which really screws with any monitoring we do.  and it could further undermine vaccine confedance and people with fake vaccines get ill and maybe die.

 

So yeah  on one hand I'm pro vaccine passports,  on the other I get a really bad feeling this is not gonna work as expected and does not sit well with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Nightclubs' is the media line. 'Crowded venues' is what we're actually talking about, as others have said.

The point I think may be missed here is that insofar as Johnson has a political philosophy, and it's pretty loose and flexible I accept, but insofar as he has one it's completely opposed to this sort of measure: and in addition, it's not politically advantageous for him to suggest such measures because many of his backbenchers (and quite a few of his frontbenchers) viscerally dislike ideas like this.

So it follows that someone has shown Johnson some compelling evidence that this is a thing that may, even if he hates it, actually have to happen. Why is he announcing it now? Because he hopes like hell that it can still be avoided. But time for that is running extremely short. If this is to be put in place, it will take clubs and other venues some time to consider how to implement it. I can say from experience, if you tried to impose this with two weeks' notice it would be chaos and carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this is one of these things that comes out when the government is trying to distract people from another thing, and will then get dropped a few months later. This plan would be unworkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...