Should people who refuse a Covid vaccine be denied treatment or charged for it?

[EddieM]

The figures include people whose Covid-19 wasn't confirmed by a positive test...

And how many have died because routine treatment/tests are not being carried out?

Plus dying with covid is totally different from dying of covid!

But the 55k figure is those who have tested positive.

I guess your "theory" is that covid didn't cause a significant number of deaths, but those deaths were caused instead by not getting routine tests and treatments. Are there any statistics to back that assertion up?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Do you have to try hard to appear so slow, or does it come naturally? His forum user name is Joinerjohn. The reason he's on a contruction based forum is because he used to be in construction. A chippy, in case you hadn't twigged. He then retrained to work in the health service. How do I know this? Because he used to be a member on here.

It's still a special for plumbers, unregulated, unmoderated site.
I can still see why you would be attracted to such a site.
Why would he continue his contributions to such a site, but not to DIYnot? Perhaps for the same reason you participate in such a site?
And you're content to use quotes from users of such a site. Hardly a source of integrity is it?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I remember Joiner John from the S/F forum, sound bloke.

So he was a member of DIYnot, but discontinued his contributions in favour of remaining on a special for plumbers, unregulated, unmoderated site?
And he used to be a member of S/F, but discontinued his contributions in favour of this special for plumbers, unregulated, unmoderated site?
It sounds like he had a reason for his behaviour. I wonder what that could have been.
And ReganandCarter thinks his comments are honest, trustworthy and reliable?

 

[dontbelieveawordofit]

Hardly a source of integrity is it?

and this is?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

and this is?

Who said it was?
But a site without moderation or regulation of any sort is not a credible source of information.
However ReganandCarter appears to think it is, and happily quotes from it as support for his argument. An argument which is suspect and fallible to start with.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

What's your solution?

As only 200 under 40s with no pre-existing illnesses have been recorded (note I use the word 'recorded') as dying from Covid, and the figures for under 60s aren't high either - first obvious thing would be to lock down the over 60s and those with pre-existing conditions. Not lock down the whole country and crash the entire economy when it's not needed. Not downplaying Corona, but for the vast majority the only way they can be sure they've got it is to take a test

Also need to scrap crazy, nonsensical rules. Eg. why can you workout in a gym with no mask in close proximity to others, but not play indoor tennis when you've got a whole tennis court for only 2 people?

I'm amazed at some people on here who were rightly highly sceptical of a lying Johnson and his merry men, but suddenly turn a blind eye to his failings and unquestioningly believe his inflated stats and are eager to follow ever more bizarre, draconian rules. Rules that even those in power don't follow when they're driving hundreds of miles testing their eyesight. They never stop to ask why real crimes go uninvestigated, but there are countless police to crush any questioning of lockdown or the rules. Burglaries and car crime go unchecked, but for minor trangressions of the 'rules', the police state is straight on it -

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pub-bosses-sacked-giving-out-23113137

If lockdowns work, why did Bristol for example, go into Nov lockdown in tier 1 but come out in tier 3? The first sign of madness/stupidity is doing the same thing, but expecting a different result.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Of course we could just accept that this 'virus' (on the figures already given) isn't that much worse than the flu and let it run it's course instead of destroying the world's economy and causing more preventable deaths.

Wouldn't say to let it rip, but certainly needs something in between hard lockdowns and no control.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just another contradiction.

Has everyone noticed that the 'recommendations' for Christmas visits include 'open a window' (ideal in December UK) so the virus can be blown away?

Does this not make a mockery of the 'two meter distancing' mantra?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

So he was a member of DIYnot, but discontinued his contributions in favour of remaining on a special for plumbers, unregulated, unmoderated site?
And he used to be a member of S/F, but discontinued his contributions in favour of this special for plumbers, unregulated, unmoderated site?
It sounds like he had a reason for his behaviour. I wonder what that could have been.

At least he voluntarily 'discontinued' his contributions. How many times have you been banned now, and had to skulk back with a new user name? At least three times we know of.

Anyway, you said that you had 'voluntarily' discontinued your contributions in your Dazzler alter ego because some on here offended your sensibilities? Yet you're still here.

You'd think you couldn't make this stuff up, but Redherring, Himmy, Dazzler manages it.

Oh the irony!

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'm amazed at some people on here who were rightly highly sceptical of a lying Johnson and his merry men, but suddenly turn a blind eye to his failings and unquestioningly believe his inflated stats and are eagre to follow ever more bizarre, draconian rules.

You're confusing law abiding citizens with those who are supporters of this government. The two are probably way dissimilar, but you've managed to conflate them. You've employed some highly questionable reasoning to support your extremely fallible argument.
A law/regulation/instruction has to be respected whether you agree with it or not, however draconian you consider it to be. But you don't need to agree with the reasoning behind it, nor the reasons presented for the introduction of the law. In fact you can be highly critical of that law, but you still have to abide by it.
You have demonstrated that you'll willingly ignore expected social behaviourial standards when it suits. So maybe, in your case, disbelief is accompanied by ignoring the rules.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yet you're still here.

And so are your racist comments.
Have you ever been banned for your racist comments?

 

[Brigadier]

You're confusing law abiding citizens with those who are supporters of this government.

No he's not. Read the post again.

The two are probably way dissimilar, but you've managed to conflate them.

No, he didn't. The two groups were of your making, not RnC's. You have conflated the "groups of your own making".

You've employed some highly questionable reasoning to support your extremely fallible argument.

No, he, hasn't. You have misunderstood / misrepresented RnC's post, which is why you think it is "extremely fallible".

A law/regulation/instruction has to be respected whether you agree with it or not, however draconian you consider it to be. But you don't need to agree with the reasoning behind it, nor the reasons presented for the introduction of the law. In fact you can be highly critical of that law, but you still have to abide by it.

That, however, is nothing to do with what RnC posted.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

No he's not. Read the post again.
No, he didn't. The two groups were of your making, not RnC's. You have conflated the "groups of your own making".

I've highlighted (by editing my earlier post) the relevant passages in ReganandCarter's post for you.

 

[Brigadier]

I've highlighted (by editing my earlier post) the relevant passages in ReganandCarter's post for you.

I'm amazed at some people on here who were rightly highly sceptical of a lying Johnson and his merry men, but suddenly turn a blind eye to his failings and unquestioningly believe his inflated stats and are eagre to follow ever more bizarre, draconian rules.

Those on here who profess BJ and his band to be liars, yet choose to believe his utterances and ramblings when it suits them.
That's one group, not two.

You're confusing law abiding citizens with those who are supporters of this government. The two are probably way dissimilar, but you've managed to conflate them.

...... and are eagre to follow ever more bizarre, draconian rules.

But you don't need to agree with the reasoning behind it, nor the reasons presented for the introduction of the law. In fact you can be highly critical of that law, but you still have to abide by it.

RnC didn't say the group were critical but abided by the rules anyway; he said they were eager to follow them.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

No, he, hasn't. You have misunderstood / misrepresented RnC's post, which is why you think it is "extremely fallible".

His argument is that the virus is not as virulent or fatal as the government present it.
He questions the fatality statistics in support of his theory. He conflates the 'dying with' and the 'dying from'. In reality no-one dies from Covid, they die of repercussions and complications deriving from Covid.
He provides two absurd scenarios (from his unbelievable endless scenarios that he can't think of) as further support for his theory.
He quotes his anonymous mate from an unregulated, unmoderated forum as support for his theories.

Finally he resorts to the usual ad hominem attacks because his theories and reasoning have been shown to be demonstrably fallible.
Now if you think I have misunderstood or misrepresented his arguments, by all means explain how.