All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

Timberrrrrrrr

GT89 wrote: »

Not the same thing. Seat belt laws weren't brought in virtually overnight either. There are exemptions to seatbelt laws also. Some vehicles do not have seatbelts such as buses. Personally I wouldn't be against a law that means you don't have to wear a seatbelt if travelling under 50km

Exactly, there are exemptions for not wearing a seat belt, the same as there is for masks.

Would you put a 5 year old child in a car without a seat belt at 50KMH?

Dohnjoe

Here's what the government needs to do. Hire a nice tropical island with one hospital on it. Then offer to send all the anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, and Covid-deniers there all expenses paid. They can walk around without masks, without social distancing, no vaccines to their hearts content, it would be paradise for them. The only caveat is they can't return for 6 months. Obviously the hospital will be clogged with Covid cases after just a few weeks, but apparently since these people don't seem to have an issue with that, I'm sure they'll figure it out, maybe they'd find some empty corridors in the hospital to film. Bonus: they'd be out of society. Win win for everyone.

GT89

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Exactly, there are exemptions for not wearing a seat belt, the same as there is for masks.

Would you put a 5 year old child in a car without a seat belt at 50KMH?

But yet it's perfectly safe to have a 5 year old unrestrained on a bus at 50km/ph. Just not a car. So I am guessing if owned a vintage car with no seatbelts you wouldn't allow a child travel in it.

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

But yet it's perfectly safe to have a 5 year old unrestrained on a bus at 50km/ph. Just not a car. So I am guessing if owned a vintage car with no seatbelts you wouldn't allow a child travel in it.

Again, this is easily available information. All buses must have seatbelts for all passengers. A five year old should wear a seatbelt on a bus and by law must be told to do so, but they cannot be prosecuted if they do not.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It isn't, masks reduce the spread of the virus.

They have been a roaring success so far here

Best "suppression" we had was the first wave, with no masks

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Again, this is easily available information. All buses must have seatbelts for all passengers. A five year old should wear a seatbelt on a bus and by law must be told to do so, but they cannot be prosecuted if they do not.

Why don't public buses have them then?

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have been a roaring success so far here

Best "suppression" we had was the first wave, with no masks

Causation does not equal correlation. Masks, when used correctly, are proven to reduce virus spread. This is a fact.

Dohnjoe

GT89 wrote: »

But yet it's perfectly safe to have a 5 year old unrestrained on a bus at 50km/ph.

Because buses are generally safer than cars and other reasons

e.g. a school bus

"“Students are about 70 times more likely to get to school safely when taking a bus instead of traveling by car. That’s because school buses are the most regulated vehicles on the road; they’re designed to be safer than passenger vehicles in preventing crashes and injuries; and in every State, stop-arm laws protect children from other motorists."
https://dmv.vermont.gov/faq/why-do-school-buses-not-require-seat-belts#:~:text=That's%20because%20school%20buses%20are,protect%20children%20from%20other%20motorists.

e.g. public transport buses

For a lot of reasons

The cost of maintaining them would be prohibitive

A lot of buses allow people to stand because that’s the only way to ensure that you can get enough buses on the route

The primary reason for seat belts in cars is to keep you in the strongest part of the car and keep you away from the windshield. That’s not an issue in a bus as the strongest part of the bus is extremely large and most passengers have a barrier between themselves and the front window.

In a case where passengers are going to get injured (like being hit by a semi-truck) seat belts aren’t going to help much. Bus accidents are fundamentally different than car accidents and it’s far far less likely that a bus collision will result in any casualties at all.

Buses are extremely safe vehicles and bus fatalities and injuries are lower than for pretty much any sort of transportation, including trains and planes. Any accident that results in passenger fatalities is pretty much one that obliterates the bus entirely - if the bus survives, the passengers survive. I was in a bus accident once - we were struck hard by a car. The car was totaled, the passengers got off and the bus drove to the depot for repairs. The last bus fatality in Toronto was the result of the bus being hit by a train.

https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-seat-belts-required-in-buses

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why don't public buses have them then?

Afaik all new fleet from the last few years are required to have them. The original law exempted them as they were not seemed necessary, that is changed.

Like masks weren't deemed necessary, but new evidence has changed that.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

They have been a roaring success so far here

Best "suppression" we had was the first wave, with no masks

Masks reduce the spread of the virus, keyword: reduce.

The first lockdown and suite of measures worked relatively well because people adhered to it. As the virus died down, these measures were reduced, and people relaxed, this meant the virus started spreading again and soon we were inundated with a second wave.

Masks on their own don't "stop" the virus, however no masks would have meant more people would have been infected, meaning those waves would have been bigger.

It's all about reducing the spread of the virus.

GT89

runawaybishop wrote: »

Afaik all new fleet from the last few years are required to have them. The original law exempted them as they were not seemed necessary, that is changed.

Like masks weren't deemed necessary, but new evidence has changed that.

Incorrect only school buses are required to have seatbelts in Ireland. Buses which can carry standing passengers and have a speed limiter fitted meaning they are limited to 65km/ph do not require them.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have been a roaring success so far here

Best "suppression" we had was the first wave, with no masks

Was there any other restrictions in place during the first wave?
Was compliance with those restrictions higher or lower than it is now?

Timberrrrrrrr

GT89 wrote: »

But yet it's perfectly safe to have a 5 year old unrestrained on a bus at 50km/ph. Just not a car. So I am guessing if owned a vintage car with no seatbelts you wouldn't allow a child travel in it.

You're dammed right I wouldn't.

aido79

GT89 wrote: »

So tell me what makes you think the mainstream media are accurate

You don't believe mainstream media but are willing to quote Vanity Fair?
I think you are just looking for sources that suit your narrative regardless of where its published.
At any stage when this is over( and it will end) and you have been proven wrong will you be willing to post here and admit you are wrong or will you just move on to the next conspiracy?

Dohnjoe

"People who believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories tend to struggle with scientific reasoning, study finds"

https://www.psypost.org/2021/02/people-who-believe-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-tend-to-struggle-with-scientific-reasoning-study-finds-59801

In news that will surprise no one, people with lower scientific reasoning are more likely to gravitate towards conspiracy theories and demonstrate reluctance to follow government guidelines.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Masks reduce the spread of the virus, keyword: reduce.

The first lockdown and suite of measures worked relatively well because people adhered to it. As the virus died down, these measures were reduced, and people relaxed, this meant the virus started spreading again and soon we were inundated with a second wave.

Masks on their own don't "stop" the virus, however no masks would have meant more people would have been infected, meaning those waves would have been bigger.

It's all about reducing the spread of the virus.

Does the Covid virus spread, dependent on a person's age? I'm not asking you how it afflicts somebody whether they be 9 or 90. I'm asking you if it can be spread from someone who is 9 or 90?

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Does the Covid virus spread, dependent on a person's age? I'm not asking you how it afflicts somebody whether they be 9 or 90. I'm asking you if it can be spread from someone who is 9 or 90?

Yes

The issue is that the 9 year old will probably live

The 90 year old will probably die


You already know this so i don't know why it has to be explained to you yet again.

PintOfView

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Does the Covid virus spread, dependent on a person's age? I'm not asking you how it afflicts somebody whether they be 9 or 90. I'm asking you if it can be spread from someone who is 9 or 90?

Here is a recent study (Feb 2021)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/02/01/science.abe8372
Here is an extract from their conclusions ...
"We estimate that as of October 2020, individuals aged 20-49 are the only age groups sustaining resurgent SARS-CoV-2 transmission with reproduction numbers well above one, and that at least 65 of 100 COVID-19 infections originate from individuals aged 20-49 in the US."
However this may be due to an increased level of mobility in that age group, which facilitates catching and re-transmitting the virus.

This article from Oct 2020
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/223/3/362/5943164
is saying that
"susceptibility to infection for children younger than 10 years is estimated to be significantly lower, " than younger/middle aged adults, whereas
"estimated susceptibility to infection in adults older than 60 years is higher" than younger/middle aged adults

Taking the two together, it may be that susceptibility increases with age, but young/middle aged adults account for most transmission!

Dohnjoe

Par for the course.

Boggles

Well that completely explains Marty Morrissey.

The Nal

Poor Marian Finucane didn't eat enough babies.

Ted_YNWA

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Par for the course.

Mod

Can you provide a source for this.

Boggles

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Mod

Can you provide a source for this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/conspiracy-fans-jubilant-over-demo-success-nj8zfbhfz

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/dublin-must-handle-new-qanon-fear

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"People who believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories tend to struggle with scientific reasoning, study finds"

https://www.psypost.org/2021/02/people-who-believe-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-tend-to-struggle-with-scientific-reasoning-study-finds-59801

In news that will surprise no one, people with lower scientific reasoning are more likely to gravitate towards conspiracy theories and demonstrate reluctance to follow government guidelines.

What conspiracy theories is the study referring to?

The health passport / vaccine passport conspiracy theory? (Currently in use in Israel, and set to be rolled out across the EU)

The permanent lockdown conspiracy theory? (The WEF posted a tweet, and subsequently deleted it, saying that lockdowns were improving life in cities: https://twitter.com/wef/status/1365614687514165248)

The permanent masks conspiracy theory? (Professor John Edmunds said recently that they would be required for ever: https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202102121082057006-the-longest-three-weeks-in-history---from-flattening-the-curve-to-a-permanent-new-abnormal/)

The permanent social distancing conspiracy theory? (Priti Patel said back as far back as May that social distancing was here to stay: https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/social-distancing-is-here-to-stay-says-home-secretary-priti-patel)

What exactly are the conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

What conspiracy theories is the study referring to?

Conspiracy theorists in general. It's a type of thinking.

The health passport / vaccine passport conspiracy theory? (Currently in use in Israel, and set to be rolled out across the EU)

The health passport is something that already exists and is in use in several countries. The conspiracy theory is that it's nefarious, used to "control the masses" and all that unsubstantiated nonsense.

The permanent lockdown conspiracy theory? (The WEF posted a tweet, and subsequently deleted it, saying that lockdowns were improving life in cities: https://twitter.com/wef/status/1365614687514165248)

Which is a complete conspiracy theory. In 150 pages of this post not one person has been able to produce any evidence that lockdown measures will be permanent as part of a secret agenda nor produced any reasoning why that will happen.

The permanent masks conspiracy theory? (Professor John Edmunds said recently that they would be required for ever: https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202102121082057006-the-longest-three-weeks-in-history---from-flattening-the-curve-to-a-permanent-new-abnormal/)

Your source is Sputnik news, a Russian state propaganda media site that spreads conspiracy theories. That aside, people may chose to wear masks like they do in e.g. Asia.

The permanent social distancing conspiracy theory? (Priti Patel said back as far back as May that social distancing was here to stay: https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/social-distancing-is-here-to-stay-says-home-secretary-priti-patel)

Yes certain things, e.g. working from home, will probably stick around. Conspiracy theorists don't grasp this and tend to believe that all or most measures will be implemented for, you've guessed it, nefarious reasons.

What exactly are the conspiracy theories?

Plenty of allusions to them in this thread but when asked for details or specifics they quickly become vague. They are kept deliberately vague because proponents are unable to detail or support them.

Rational people can understand why e.g. we wear masks, and why some people might chose to wear masks after the pandemic is over. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to believe it's all part of some sinister plan they can never detail.

What measures do you believe will be permanent and why?

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

What conspiracy theories is the study referring to?

The health passport / vaccine passport conspiracy theory? (Currently in use in Israel, and set to be rolled out across the EU)

The permanent lockdown conspiracy theory? (The WEF posted a tweet, and subsequently deleted it, saying that lockdowns were improving life in cities: https://twitter.com/wef/status/1365614687514165248)

The permanent masks conspiracy theory? (Professor John Edmunds said recently that they would be required for ever: https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202102121082057006-the-longest-three-weeks-in-history---from-flattening-the-curve-to-a-permanent-new-abnormal/)

The permanent social distancing conspiracy theory? (Priti Patel said back as far back as May that social distancing was here to stay: https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/social-distancing-is-here-to-stay-says-home-secretary-priti-patel)

What exactly are the conspiracy theories?

Those, but also the idea that covid was man made.
That the vaccines are dangerous/contain secret tracking technology/secret infertility drugs/secret cyborg stuff.
That there would be martial law.
That covid is being exaggerated.

Weird that you're forgetting these claims.

So why do you believe masks and social distancing are permenant? What's the benefit to the evil cabal controlling all governments?
What is your objection to vaccine passports?
I thought the claim was that they were going to be extended to all things in life?

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists in general. It's a type of thinking.



The health passport is something that already exists and is in use in several countries. The conspiracy theory is that it's nefarious, used to "control the masses" and all that unsubstantiated nonsense.



Which is a complete conspiracy theory. In 150 pages of this post not one person has been able to produce any evidence that lockdown measures will be permanent as part of a secret agenda nor produced any reasoning why that will happen.



Your source is Sputnik news, a Russian state propaganda media site that spreads conspiracy theories. That aside, people may chose to wear masks like they do in e.g. Asia.




Yes certain things, e.g. working from home, will probably stick around. Conspiracy theorists don't grasp this and tend to believe that all or most measures will be implemented for, you've guessed it, nefarious reasons.



Plenty in this thread.

Rational people can understand why e.g. we wear masks, and why some people might chose to wear masks after the pandemic is over. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand believe it's all part of some sinister plan they can never detail.

Has the type of health passport in use in Israel, that is one that bans people from gyms, restaurants, theatres etc, been used before?

Do you find it strange that WEF would tweet that lockdowns are improving life in cities? If they think lockdowns are improving life in cities then that suggests to me that they think that life in cities would be worse with no lockdowns.

Professor John Edmunds said they'd be required by law for ever. He said it in a television interview. He didn't say people would choose to wear them. Would you be ok with them being required by law for ever?

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you find it strange that WEF would tweet that lockdowns are improving life in cities? If they think lockdowns are improving life in cities then that suggests to me that they think that life in cities would be worse with no lockdowns.

Before you continue, could you confirm that you've actually read the book by the guy from the WEF?

The previous conspiracy theorists who were also vaguely suspicious about the WEF never actually read the book they were so concerned about.
I suspect similar here.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Those, but also the idea that covid was man made.
That the vaccines are dangerous/contain secret tracking technology/secret infertility drugs/secret cyborg stuff.
That there would be martial law.
That covid is being exaggerated.

Weird that you're forgetting these claims.

So why do you believe masks and social distancing are permenant? What's the benefit to the evil cabal controlling all governments?
What is your objection to vaccine passports?
I thought the claim was that they were going to be extended to all things in life?

I'm not saying I believe they'll be permanent. Professor John Edmunds and Priti Patel are saying masks and social distancing are here to stay.

I've no objection to vaccine passports for travel because there's a precedent for it with yellow fever. But I don't like the idea of people being banned from certain places because they're not vaccinated. That's what's happening in Israel.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Has the type of health passport in use in Israel, that is one that bans people from gyms, restaurants, theatres etc, been used before?

No, I was referring to the health passport from e.g. New Zealand which people use to inform others of their personal or sensitive health conditions.

The "green" passport from Israel is a method to identify people who've had two doses of the vaccination, in order to e.g. exempt those people from having to go into isolation after coming into contact with someone who was infected, which makes sense.

That said, there are still common sense concerns that indirectly such a system may cause discrimination.

Do you find it strange that WEF would tweet that lockdowns are improving life in cities? If they think lockdowns are improving life in cities then that suggests to me that they think that life in cities would be worse with no lockdowns.

No I don't find it strange at all. Certain aspects of life are indirectly improving under lockdown, e.g. less traffic. Some towns/cities have taken advantage of this to e.g. build extra cycle lanes.

Professor John Edmunds said they'd be required by law for ever. He said it in a television interview. He didn't say people would choose to wear them. Would you be ok with them being required by law for ever?

What was his reasoning? Why would we have to wear masks at their current level "forever"?

What lockdown measures do you believe will be permanent and why?