Corona deniers getting what they deserve

[Khaiser]

even if children have a high success rate in surviving.. why in God's name would you ever want to risk it?

God bless this child. just seeing her like that crushes me.

But did she die?



Sarcasm before anyone gets upset. One of the things overlooked quite often is how damaging this disease can be for the long term health of those who survive. Pneumonia, isn’t to be fucked with.

 

[Goonerview]

Mate, it’s nowhere close to a fucking Gulag ffs <45> I’ll go shopping today with the mrs and then go for a walk somewhere nice to enjoy the sunshine. Honestly, people are simply far too soft.

You’ve just liked a post saying people are at fault for adopting extremes positions (which is fair to say) and then gone on to compare being paid to stay at home, or just working from home, to life in a soviet forced labour camp.

The government paying you NOT to work is literally the exact opposite.

My position, as stated before, is practice common sense. That's all I have got to say on this.

 

[nhbfan8080]

This is getting ridiculous.

We don’t shut down motorways at 27,000 deaths per year. We implement numerous safety measures to ensure those deaths stay at a level we find acceptable (a level well below our likely final Covid 19 death total). We have a speed limit. We have laws in relation to seatbelts. We have child seats. We have an entire industry focused on training us to drive safely. We have a penalty system for those that don’t adhere to those laws. We have specific tests for specific vehicles and health checks to ensure we’re fit to drive.

What do you think would happen if in a single year, we abandoned all of those measures, and UK Road death figures are 270,000, instead of 27,000? Of course we would look at implementing extreme safety measures or even closing down motorways.

Those free market libertarian types will always see sensible laws/regulations as govt intrusion. Reason magazine had an article I think which said safety belts didn't work etc. Probably prefer that there are no laws against drink driving or cell phone use while driving.

 

[MIKOM]

A level who finds acceptable?? That is a subjective number.

My final point is, if "saving lives" is the be all, end all, in all of this, then why haven't we banned other things. Suddenly, human life is worth more than everything.

Don't forget to answer my queries before bowing out.
I posted them twice for you.

 

[Khaiser]

A level who finds acceptable?? That is a subjective number.

My final point is, if "saving lives" is the be all, end all, in all of this, then why haven't we banned other things. Suddenly, human life is worth more than everything.

Society find acceptable.

Human life is ultimately the be all and end all because we have very little indeed in the absence of it.

 

[Goonerview]

Don't for get to answer my queries before bowing out.
I posted them twice for you.

Look, I am not saying traffic accidents are exactly the same as an infectious disease, but the number of casualties ARE comparible.

Sure, the logistics of how they effect people and society are different, of course, I accept that.

I am just pushing back on this "saving lives uber alles" argument, which is ridiculous. And probably will be more damaging to society in the long run.

 

[Goonerview]

Society find acceptable.

Human life is ultimately the be all and end all because we have very little indeed in the absence of it.

It's not, we put prices on human lives all the time.

 

[Khaiser]

Those free market libertarian types will always see sensible laws/regulations as govt intrusion. Reason magazine had an article I think which said safety belts didn't work etc. Probably prefer that there are no laws against drink driving or cell phone use while driving.

Seems to be the case.

Ironically, the free market only ever exists up to a point. In the US at least, corporations are largely free to fuck-over the man on the street. When things go sour though, you can be sure the government will be stepping in to intervene, forcing the average Joe to foot the bill for the bailout.

In the UK we have Richard Branson, a billionaire airline boss with his own private tropical island, asking the people for money to help his airline get through the crisis. It’s sickening.

 

[Khaiser]

It's not, we put prices on human lives all the time.

It clearly is. Putting a price on a human life doesn’t mean the totality of human life isn’t the be all and end all.

Cleary, in the absence of human life, ‘we’ have nothing.

 

[Nimrod]

I know youre not very intelligent, and this may be hard to understand, but I'm not scared about getting it myself. I'm just not a piece of shit person, and I know that if I get it, that means I can spread it. And that means I will be contributing to people dying who didn't have to die.

We are literally living in an age where people think they are saving lives .. Haha

You can imagine the conversation between two of these chumps ..

"Hey man i saved 15 lifes today sitting on my sofa"
Im such a good citizen being today what to do by my corporate gods .. Sit and consume netflicks and order stuff from amazon and facebook.. Yes masters im a life saver..
While the 'essentail workers' are made into virtual martyrs ..
The useless pointless rest are told to stay at home ' save lives instead' its brilliant psychology ..
If the useless lot .. Thats most people hadnt been charged with saving lives this would never have worked..
Divide and conquer never looked so good.

 

[Goonerview]

It clearly is. Putting a price on a human life doesn’t mean the totality of human life isn’t the be all and end all.

Cleary, in the absence of human life, ‘we’ have nothing.

I think we are crossing wires here, I am talking about the value of a human life. Not the entire population of all humans.

If an individual human life was the ultimate value, we wouldn't have cars, because they are too dangerous. As human lives are more valuable that the economic value of having cars/economy.

We have cars and transport systems and ACCEPT that there is going to be some human collateral. We have done this since the dawn of man and almost every technological development.

 

[johnnybeebob]

HAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS VIRUS IS SO SERIOUS THAT I'M HAPPY THAT ANYONE THAT DOESN"T THINK IT'S SERIOUS GOT IT HAHAHAHA

So are you stupid or lying? If you think the Virus is that serious, surely you wouldn't wish it on some.

These clowns are the exact people that think the virus is “just a flu bro”. It’s nice to see them get what they deserve.

 

[MIKOM]

My position, as stated before, is practice common sense. That's all I have got to say on this.

I am not happy to have more deaths heaped on top of the deaths from car accidents, especially when it involves innocents, so I am happy to lock down.
That is common sense to me.

 

[nostradumbass]

This whole post shows a tremendous lack of understanding tbh.

The entire arguments against the war on drugs isn’t that the lives of 40,000 people don’t matter, it’s that we would save more lives through legalisation and control of certain narcotics than we currently do by adopting a ‘war on drugs’ stance.

I’ve rarely seen someone miss by so much on here, and that’s saying something.

Just so I can get this straight, wanting drugs legalized is not saying that the over 42,000 lives per year don't matter, but not wanting a global depression just to delay the inevitable IS saying those lives don't matter?



Hate to tell you this, but it's not me who's missed the mark here.

 

[Khaiser]

Just so I can get this straight, wanting drugs legalized is not saying that the over 42,000 lives per year don't matter, but not wanting a global depression just to delay the inevitable IS saying those lives don't matter?



Hate to tell you this, but it's not me who's missed the mark here.

I can assure you, it is you.

The premise behind wanting a nation to adopt a different approach to drug use is the desire to save lives. That is not what your original post suggested.

The suggestion of ‘delaying the inevitable’ shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire Covid strategy. The best virologists in the world did not support social distancing measures to ‘delay the inevitable’, they did so in order to not overrun the healthcare system, resulting in thousands more deaths than necessary.

How you even equate the position of wanting to adopt a more practical approach to the problem of drug use to not caring about drug deaths is anybody’s guess, however.

 

[Goonerview]

I am not happy to have more deaths heaped on top of the deaths from car accidents, especially when it involves innocents, so I am happy to lock down.
That is common sense to me.

Common sense to me is:

Wash your hands
Gargle water after coming home
Wear a mask
Go for walks in parks/forests/beaches
Don't go anywhere too crowded, avoid crowds, close proximity with too many people.
Don't lick elevator buttons! i.e. don't do silly shit.

This, stay imprisoned in your own house thing ain't for me, at the same time, I am not going to parties/nightclubs.

 

[MIKOM]

Common sense to me is:

Wash your hands
Gargle water after coming home
Wear a mask
Go for walks in parks/forests/beaches
Don't go anywhere too crowded, avoid crowds, close proximity with too many people.
Don't lick elevator buttons! i.e. don't do silly shit.

This, stay imprisoned in your own house thing ain't for me, at the same time, I am not going to parties/nightclubs.

I like the majority of folk in my country have been following the guidelines set out by our health service and government.
It is working well so far (no swamping of hospitals) and we have now started to see the beginning of a relaxation of some of the current guidelines. For example, people can now travel up to 5km instead of 2km for daily exercise from next Tuesday. Those who are cocooning can now go outside and travel within 5km but they must not have any contact with others.
Construction work is set to recommence on 18 May, also.

 

[Nimrod]

I can assure you, it is you.

The premise behind wanting a nation to adopt a different approach to drug use is the desire to save lives. That is not what your original post suggested.

The suggestion of ‘delaying the inevitable’ shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire Covid strategy. The best virologists in the world did not support social distancing measures to ‘delay the inevitable’, they did so in order to not overrun the healthcare system, resulting in thousands more deaths than necessary.

How you even equate the position of wanting to adopt a more practical approach to the problem of drug use to not caring about drug deaths is anybody’s guess, however.

The delaying of the virus is total hocus pocus . .

The first cases of the virus were reported in Nov .. and some cases in Thailand not long after that.. If this virus is as infectious as they say then the virus would have been half way around the world by the end of december given the incubation time. . and there was no real tracing and testing being done, probably on purpose.. To let it spread.. No testing and tracing goes against infectious disease protocols which China have adhered to with SARS, and the MERS was dealt with in the same manner .. Although These were more deadly out breaks .. So what gives here? Something aint right ..

 

[MIKOM]

and there was no real tracing and testing being done, probably on purpose.. To let it spread.. .

I pity those around you that have to put up with your delusions.

 

[Khaiser]

The delaying of the virus is total hocus pocus . .

The first cases of the virus were reported in Nov .. and some cases in Thailand not long after that.. If this virus is as infectious as they say then the virus would have been half way around the world by the end of december given the incubation time. . and there was no real tracing and testing being done, probably on purpose.. To let it spread.. No testing and tracing goes against infectious disease protocols which China have adhered to with SARS, and the MERS was dealt with in the same manner .. Although These were more deadly out breaks .. So what gives here? Something aint right ..

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make tbh.

The virus spread through human interaction. If you take measures to reduce human interaction (such as social distancing) it follows that this will slow the spread of the virus.

We haven’t adopted these measures in an attempt to eliminate the virus, we’ve adopted them to allow our health services to cope.

 

[nostradumbass]

I can assure you, it is you.

The premise behind wanting a nation to adopt a different approach to drug use is the desire to save lives. That is not what your original post suggested.

The suggestion of ‘delaying the inevitable’ shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire Covid strategy. The best virologists in the world did not support social distancing measures to ‘delay the inevitable’, they did so in order to not overrun the healthcare system, resulting in thousands more deaths than necessary.

How you even equate the position of wanting to adopt a more practical approach to the problem of drug use to not caring about drug deaths is anybody’s guess, however.

We already didn't "overrun the healthcare system" and neither did Sweden, who never did close down. In fact, we're waaay below capacity in hospitals to the extent that healthcare workers are being furloughed or laid off entirely. You need to do a better job keeping up with the positions you're being told to take because you're just defending your masters trampling all over the bill of rights at this point. Overrunning the HC system was the concern when they though the fatality rate was 20-40 times than we now know it actually is.