Returning to normal

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Worldwide Covid deaths just topped five million. It is the third largest cause of death after heart disease and stroke. And it is highly CONTAGIOUS.

where are your calls for authoritarian crackdowns to fight heart disease and stroke?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

where are your calls for authoritarian crackdowns to fight heart disease and stroke?

You can't catch either one of them from someone else.

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, myata said:

In Dr Goebbels playbook, repetition makes up for explanation and argumentation, and fear and coercion - for intelligent communications, smart plan and effective action. Looks like he has good students.

So John's Hopkins equals Josef Goebbels. I guess the Holocaust didn't happen either. Well this is a waste of time.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I guess the Holocaust didn't happen either.

If this is your guess, why would anyone else have anything to do with it?

[Aristides]

I don't know why you keep dragging Nazis into this. It's just ignorant.

[Boges]

5 hours ago, myata said:

In Dr Goebbels playbook, repetition makes up for explanation and argumentation, and fear and coercion - for intelligent communications, smart plan and effective action. Looks like he has good students.

Trump too. 

[Boges]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

where are your calls for authoritarian crackdowns to fight heart disease and stroke?

Articulate how you'd do that? 

[myata]

In 2018 thousands in Canada had common cold and flu complications both highly contagious; for decades hundreds of thousands are diagnosed annually with heart disease and cancer. Who decided, how and why (allowed) to use Goebbels' style propaganda, with nil newsworthy content entirely for the sake of fearmongering and pushing agendas, and entirely at taxpayer's expense? As a taxpayer I have a full right to ask these questions, and to know.

[Aristides]

58 minutes ago, myata said:

In 2018 thousands in Canada had common cold and flu complications both highly contagious; for decades hundreds of thousands are diagnosed annually with heart disease and cancer. Who decided, how and why (allowed) to use Goebbels' style propaganda, with nil newsworthy content entirely for the sake of fearmongering and pushing agendas, and entirely at taxpayer's expense? As a taxpayer I have a full right to ask these questions, and to know.

There you go again.

[Army Guy]

On 10/30/2021 at 8:13 PM, Aristides said:

Not the same thing but I get your point about NB. I don't know how they made that stick. Essential air travel wasn't a rule, there was no one vetting travellers and arbitrarily deciding whether their trip was essential.

 

The how part was easy, at the beginning everything was shut down and people sent home, after we started coming out of that it was a easy step to go to border shut downs, it was what the population wanted, at the time we had very low case counts, and every time they open the borders the case count went way up.

And your right except on the land borders, as they used all province law enforcement from off road enforcement , to DNR, to any one with a uniform and a gun. But no restrictions on air travel as it was a federal run thing...and almost all the covid cases in NB were traced back to traveling by air...

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

You can't catch either one of them from someone else.

so?

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Articulate how you'd do that? 

I wouldn't do that

because that would be stupid

just as it is stupid to do in the case of covid

Edited November 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

so?

So why else would you think there would be restrictions on movement, distancing etc?

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I wouldn't do that

because that would be stupid

just as it is stupid to do in the case of covid

 

How are you going to catch heart disease or a stroke from someone else?

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So why else would you think there would be restrictions on movement, distancing etc?

to take away freedom for a false sense of security

it's not about public health

it's about control

the authoritarian crackdowns are bad for public health

Edited November 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I wouldn't do that

because that would be stupid

just as it is stupid to do in the case of covid

Well if there was a vaccine for heart disease, don't you think everyone would take it? 

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

to take away freedom for a false sense of security

it's not about public health

it's about control

 

Then why did authorities lift the restrictions that they had implemented back when the pandemic started?  In March of 2020, everything but grocery stores, liquor stores and gas stations were shut down; schools were closed (in BC).   The roads were empty of vehicles, so much so that there was a noticeable decrease in greenhouse gasses around the world.  After about three months, kids were heading back to school and businesses were opening again, albeit with restrictions.  At this point, kids are in school, businesses are open, the traffic is back, stores are full of people, restaurants are serving eat-in customers, events can have full capacity audiences.  The only restrictions I'm aware of are mask-wearing (but not in Churches) and on the unvaccinated for *some* places.

If it was about "control", we'd still be where we were in March of 2020.  I hope you feel stupid when the pandemic becomes endemic, and there are no restrictions - not even on the unvaccinated.   

[myata]

52 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well if there was a vaccine for heart disease, don't you think everyone would take it? 

In your world, "take it" means same as "lose your job, be denied employment benefits and other necessiteies like access to transportation for not taking it"? Do you really want to live in this world?

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

In your world, "take it" means same as "lose your job, be denied employment benefits and other necessiteies like access to transportation for not taking it"? Do you really want to live in this world?

No that wouldn't happen. Again heart disease isn't communicable. 

But if this fictional vaccine existed, wouldn't insurance be effected for those that refused to take such a vaccine. Similar to how smokers have to pay higher insurance. 

 

[myata]

18 minutes ago, Boges said:

No that wouldn't happen. Again heart disease isn't communicable.

That's the problem with this sort of people. They don't answer clear questions. Should a quasi-vaccine with some benefits but far from those normally associated with the word like long-time protection be forced on the people with real loss of necessary services and benefits? Yes or no, without distractions and deflections.

Sure go ahead with Covid insurance, but this is not what is being down here, so why bring it up? And sure, it's already happening and happened in case you didn't notice.

Unless that is, they are not here to answer questions only push, press and march on.

Edited November 2, 2021 by myata

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Should a quasi-vaccine with some benefits but far from those normally associated with the word like long-time protection be forced on the people with real loss of necessary services and benefits?

That's not been shown to be the consequences of forgoing the vaccine. 

No one is being denied essential services. 

For those that lose their employment. . . should the employer not have the right to provide a safe workplace and safeguard against lost time due to COVID. Workplaces already have strict mask mandates. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Well if there was a vaccine for heart disease, don't you think everyone would take it? 

if they didn't

that isn't justification for authoritarian crackdowns

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if they didn't

that isn't justification for authoritarian crackdowns

I think our definitions of "authoritarian crackdowns" differ greatly. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Then why did authorities lift the restrictions that they had implemented back when the pandemic started?  In March of 2020, everything but grocery stores, liquor stores and gas stations were shut down; schools were closed (in BC).   The roads were empty of vehicles, so much so that there was a noticeable decrease in greenhouse gasses around the world.  After about three months, kids were heading back to school and businesses were opening again, albeit with restrictions.  At this point, kids are in school, businesses are open, the traffic is back, stores are full of people, restaurants are serving eat-in customers, events can have full capacity audiences.  The only restrictions I'm aware of are mask-wearing (but not in Churches) and on the unvaccinated for *some* places.

If it was about "control", we'd still be where we were in March of 2020.  I hope you feel stupid when the pandemic becomes endemic, and there are no restrictions - not even on the unvaccinated.   

it's about control

can't crackdown forever without losing control

can only be done incrementally

boiling the frog

that's how it went from leaders laughing at the notion that they would ever implement vaccine passports and doing so would be crazy

to implementing them and saying anyone who disagrees with them is crazy

get them used to authoritarian bullshit, until it becomes the new normal

Edited November 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Boges said:

I think our definitions of "authoritarian crackdowns" differ greatly. 

yeah

if you agree with authoritarian crackdowns then they aren't authoritarian

only if you disagree are they authoritarian

your definition is whack