Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Will there be a FOURTH Lockdown?


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, pig said:

Take a look at the bill for your self.

Basically any protest can be shut down if its a 'nuisance'.  I mean isn't that kind of the whole point of a protest ?

What kind of fecking country criminalises people down to the arbitrary judgement of the police, deciding if a protest is too noisy or too long ?

Thats a slippery slope right there.

That isn't what the bill is about. It's about turning the tables such that protestors know what behaviour is and is not acceptable before a protest. Anyone can protest and that right isn't going away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, A.steve said:

The Statute 2020-C5 has a fixed lifetime of two years, and has 6-monthly "reviews".  Of course, there's a risk that an equally abhorrent piece of legislation will be passed again before March 2022... so this malevolent dystopia could easily remain indefinitely.

The financial crash prompted temporary 'Quantitative Easing' for 3 months.  It wasn't over 3 months later.  Why should these 'temporary' measures be any different?  There are trillions at stake... I don't see anyone giving up those sums for a 'return to normality'.

Almost like Covid is the govts fault there. Further legislation requires a house vote and would pass through the usual checks and balances of the legislature. This is not authoritarian with a dictator. The general elections haven't been postponed indefinitely (we've had more general elections in the last 4 years than I think we've had in the 15 before that!?).

QE is not a law it's a financial mechanism so that is a diagonal comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adarmo said:

It's sort of funny that the paranoia crew are able to spin legislation intended to protect people into something that took millions of lives away from people.

So Sweden was a "viral Armageddon"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pindar said:

Hitler attained power in March 1933, after the Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act of 1933 in that month, giving expanded authority. 

The bit about expanded authority (covid legislation passed a year ago) is basically suspending years of parliamentary traditions and rubber stamping mandates and restrictions with little or no debate. So while the UK might not have declared itself as an out and out dictatorship, it's been apparent to many that it's heading in a worrying direction, particularly as the government seems to be in no hurry to relinquish their new powers. I hope I'm wrong but like post 911, powers were meant to be temporary, I suspect many of the powers acquired in the last year will never be relinquished, particularly freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and association. 

 

1 hour ago, adarmo said:

The thing about history is there's always more of it. 

Upon twice dissolving the Reichstag in 1932, Hindenburg ultimately agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 when the Nazis won a plurality in the November elections. In response to the Reichstag Fire allegedly committed by Marinus van der Lubbe, he approved the Reichstag Fire Decree in February 1933 which suspended various civil liberties. Later in March, he signed the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave Hitler's regime emergency powers. After Hindenburg died the following year, Hitler combined the Presidency with his office as Chancellor before proceeding to declare himself Führer und Reichskanzler des deutschen Volkes (i.e. "Leader and Reich Chancellor of the German People") and transform Germany into a totalitarian state.

 In other words Hitler moved to seize total power for himself upon the death of the head of state whom had no successor. Any comparison to today is just laughable.

Those rights of freedom of assembly and association were suspended for good reason and restrictions are being retired. Further, the new bill actually enshrines those rights. There is a road map out of these restrictions which are imposed to prevent a viral Armageddon. Nobody will ever know for sure how many would have died without lockdown but just a quick look at Brazil tells me enough. 

It's sort of funny that the paranoia crew are able to spin legislation intended to protect people into something that took millions of lives away from people.

Good answer :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nightowl said:

Using and exaggerating fear to justify extraordinary measures seems part of the coarse.

Every journey no matter how long always starts with one step, then two then three. The gov (ie the cabinet) are operating like a dictatorship and bypassing debates and votes in the HofC on important issues.  Watch how they will try to avoid any debate or vote on digital ID/covid cards they are planning.

Good answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pindar said:

So Sweden was a "viral Armageddon"? 

Haha, I know Sweden very well indeed. They didn't invoke a 'lockdown law' but the vast majority of people changed behaviour. Offices were closed and everyone I know there is working remotely. 

How's Brazil working out? Queuing for oxygen cylinders... 4K a day dead..... but at least you can go and protest about it and go down the pub afterwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Unmoderated said:

Haha, I know Sweden very well indeed. They didn't invoke a 'lockdown law' but the vast majority of people changed behaviour. Offices were closed and everyone I know there is working remotely. 

How's Brazil working out? Queuing for oxygen cylinders... 4K a day dead..... but at least you can go and protest about it and go down the pub afterwards. 

It's almost as if you want to justify a ludicrous and ineffective quarantining of the healthy at any cost, and jump on anyone who disagrees like a rabid dog. Lockdowns don't work, and it's proven by science. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pindar said:

It's almost as if you want to justify a ludicrous and ineffective quarantining of the healthy at any cost, and jump on anyone who disagrees like a rabid dog. Lockdowns don't work, and it's proven by science. 

I must respectfully disagree.

Viruses spread by close contact of people. If you reduce movement of people, you reduce the number of occurences of close contact and then you lower the chances of infection. Maybe one can argue the level of lockdown might be too extreme, or not extreme enough, but lockdowns logically must lower the rate of infection. I'm also a firm believer that you either have deaths or you have a trashed economy. YMMV on what level of badness is acceptable from either of these.

I don't get many colds normally, but I haven't even felt a sniffle in the past 12 months due to not going on the stinking tube with the stinking commuters. I am attributing lockdown as the reason I have not caught a cold this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pindar said:

It's almost as if you want to justify a ludicrous and ineffective quarantining of the healthy at any cost, and jump on anyone who disagrees like a rabid dog. Lockdowns don't work, and it's proven by science. 

Care to provide your peer reviewed science journal link then?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huggy said:

I must respectfully disagree.

Viruses spread by close contact of people. If you reduce movement of people, you reduce the number of occurences of close contact and then you lower the chances of infection. Maybe one can argue the level of lockdown might be too extreme, or not extreme enough, but lockdowns logically must lower the rate of infection. I'm also a firm believer that you either have deaths or you have a trashed economy. YMMV on what level of badness is acceptable from either of these.

I don't get many colds normally, but I haven't even felt a sniffle in the past 12 months due to not going on the stinking tube with the stinking commuters. I am attributing lockdown as the reason I have not caught a cold this year.

It is certainly true that they slow down infection but the data show it's overwhelmingly the sick and infirm who are affected and who, if they so choose, should be isolated during an outbreak. Even the WHO warned against general lockdowns. We were told we were "flattening the curve" yet a year on are still in and out of these blanket shutdowns. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pindar said:

Care to provide the peer reviewed science that proves that they do? 

Oh take your logical fallacy and shove it.  You made the assertion that lockdowns don't work - so the onus is on you to prove it.  Especially with a statement that contradicts the policy advice of every healthcare service around the world.

 

If i questioned your  mothers marital fidelity then I would need to show the Navy she serviced and her rate card.  Since I have no desire to visit every dock I don't make that assertion.

 

So again, please show me the secret research that only you and your special loons have access to that the Illuminati / 6ft Lizards / QANONS / Deep state want hidden away from the sheeple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

Haha, I know Sweden very well indeed. They didn't invoke a 'lockdown law' but the vast majority of people changed behaviour. Offices were closed and everyone I know there is working remotely. 

How's Brazil working out? Queuing for oxygen cylinders... 4K a day dead..... but at least you can go and protest about it and go down the pub afterwards. 

That would be Brazil with lower deaths per million than UK right?

The 4k toll was due to Easter later reporting.

Nobody is saying it's great over there. It's awful.

But its hardly been great here with more deaths per million despite 3 lockdowns.

Lockdowns clearly do something whether they have a material impact over the long term is debatable. Those that cheerlead them as without them "we would have had X deaths" casually ignore that with them we still had X deaths.

 

Absurdity of the position best shown by people in England still raving on about "if only we had a firebreak lockdown when the scientist's recommend it", erm guys.. Wales did. And ended up in exactly the same place. 

 

 

Edited by captainb
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A.steve said:

I'm torn by the 'kill the bill' "protests".

I am opposed to the ideas of the organized activists... but I believe that the bill is wrong-headed and is a threat to democracy.  The irony is that I'm opposed to a bill that will likely be used to reign-in activities I consider unreasonable by people whose ideology I find repugnant.

Perhaps freedom is something that is beyond the capabilities of people today?

Does anyone else get the impression that they find themselves in an alternate reality modelled on the film Idiocracy?

A bit like the old "disagree with what you're saying but defend your right to say it"?

I've felt for quite some time that society has gone totally off the rails and completely lost the plot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

I guess there's two points:

1. We're not moving to an authoritarian state if there is a sunset clause here

2. The reason these powers exist is to speed up decision making in an emergency. I believe these powers already existed (for the most part) but were tweaked for Covid. 

So with point 1 there's an expiry and to extend requires a vote in the house and with point 2 those powers seem reasonable given the current circumstances.

You remove checks and balances at your peril, and we've seen that. The presence of an automatic escape clause doesn't mean that it's not a move towards a more authoritarian state (and the level of detailed control, and monitoring, and surveillance over a great many things is massive compared to just a few decades ago). The most reliable way of shifting things is by small moves at a time, each one looking innocuous enough (to many) on its own, or at least "well it's not a big deal, stop moaning about it." Easy to make massive changes there if you're patient. And I honestly doubt it's really an overt attempt at a power grab, more "we know what we need to do and we need to get rid of all that inconvenient stuff that stops us doing it" - could be good intentions (albeit good intentions that conveniently provide a bit to cream off the side). Society overall slips in that direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nightowl said:

Did you read what he said? He has a problem with experimental vaccines just so someone just so they can go to the pub who don't realise that decision isn't as trivial as 'they' make it sound. Ie the risk of the wrong product for the wrong people. Ok you don't like him because he bucks the narrative, but please don't keep implying he said something he didn't (again).

The problems of PCR are well known but wait until lateral flows go mainstream 😒

 

The problem is Yeadon's reactionary political sympathies, as inadvertently revealed by his Twitter account (now suppressed). His determination to undermine the Covid science comes from that, I believe.

I also suspect he's being supported by the same Far Right free market interests that financed the Great Barrington Declaration.

The various objections he's made about the legitimacy of the PCR test have all been comprehensively debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pindar said:

It's almost as if you want to justify a ludicrous and ineffective quarantining of the healthy at any cost, and jump on anyone who disagrees like a rabid dog. Lockdowns don't work, and it's proven by science. 

Is that almost what I am justifying? At any cost? These are your words pretending you know and understand my point of view. 

Wow, quarantine doesn't work? That is amazing. Cos, proven by science. Fact! Let's see the proof then. :D 

Without even touching a science report you can get your head around the fact that if people aren't mixing the virus can't spread and you adjust the level of lockdown to adjust the spread of the disease. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You remove checks and balances at your peril, and we've seen that. The presence of an automatic escape clause doesn't mean that it's not a move towards a more authoritarian state (and the level of detailed control, and monitoring, and surveillance over a great many things is massive compared to just a few decades ago). The most reliable way of shifting things is by small moves at a time, each one looking innocuous enough (to many) on its own, or at least "well it's not a big deal, stop moaning about it." Easy to make massive changes there if you're patient. And I honestly doubt it's really an overt attempt at a power grab, more "we know what we need to do and we need to get rid of all that inconvenient stuff that stops us doing it" - could be good intentions (albeit good intentions that conveniently provide a bit to cream off the side). Society overall slips in that direction.

Cesar was dictator with a sunset clause at first. Just to oversee an election..

Then 10 years. Then 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, captainb said:

That would be Brazil with lower deaths per million than UK right?

The 4k toll was due to Easter later reporting.

Nobody is saying it's great over there. It's awful.

But its hardly been great here with more deaths per million despite 3 lockdowns.

Lockdowns clearly do something whether they have a material impact over the long term is debatable. Those that cheerlead them as without them "we would have had X deaths" casually ignore that with them we still had X deaths.

 

Absurdity of the position best shown by people in England still raving on about "if only we had a firebreak lockdown when the scientist's recommend it", erm guys.. Wales did. And ended up in exactly the same place. 

 

 

Lower deaths for now but they are rapidly rising and UK seems at last to be coming out of the woods. Another point about Brazil is it has a much younger population (average age around ten years lower than the UK so its population are on average much lower risk from dying! My point being lockdowns work at stopping the spread. Whether or not that's a good thing is a debate in itself....

Don't think for a minute I'm a fan of lockdowns and actually without any vaccine I'd be right where I was at day one. The best analogy would be this is coastal erosion. It's going to happen and you're going to lose land. If X will die from covid then X will die from covid. It's crap but that's where we are. However, given where we are on the journey and that we've had the economic and social costs of lockdowns AND there's a vaccine rollout that's pretty much the best in the world right now AND that we're coming out of lockdowns anyway I fail to see what the problem is?

I'll be honest and say day 1 my view was let it burn through. We'll lose people but it'll be done and dusted within a year and those that remain will have a level of immunity such that it'll still be floating around but will be a background disease. Variants seem to have accelerated the burn lat Q4 despite some restrictions but once that worked its way through we might be looking at a society that has herd immunity without any restrictions very soon. 

I agree with you on the firebreak lockdown - that only works if you actually kill the virus off for good and stop it coming back in although it does seem to have worked well in NZ and Oz but let's see how they get on as they approach their winter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You remove checks and balances at your peril, and we've seen that. The presence of an automatic escape clause doesn't mean that it's not a move towards a more authoritarian state (and the level of detailed control, and monitoring, and surveillance over a great many things is massive compared to just a few decades ago). The most reliable way of shifting things is by small moves at a time, each one looking innocuous enough (to many) on its own, or at least "well it's not a big deal, stop moaning about it." Easy to make massive changes there if you're patient. And I honestly doubt it's really an overt attempt at a power grab, more "we know what we need to do and we need to get rid of all that inconvenient stuff that stops us doing it" - could be good intentions (albeit good intentions that conveniently provide a bit to cream off the side). Society overall slips in that direction.

I think the checks and balances have been suspended for a period rather than removed. Subtle but different. The sunset clause does mean that it requires a vote to extend and as for the authoritarian state argument you can make that statement about any law or regulation enacted by parliament. There are enough rebel Tories (70 or so?) plus the opposition who have the job of just blocking everything to stop the existing government doing anything it likes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

Lower deaths for now but they are rapidly rising and UK seems at last to be coming out of the woods. Another point about Brazil is it has a much younger population (average age around ten years lower than the UK so its population are on average much lower risk from dying! My point being lockdowns work at stopping the spread. Whether or not that's a good thing is a debate in itself....

Don't think for a minute I'm a fan of lockdowns and actually without any vaccine I'd be right where I was at day one. The best analogy would be this is coastal erosion. It's going to happen and you're going to lose land. If X will die from covid then X will die from covid. It's crap but that's where we are. However, given where we are on the journey and that we've had the economic and social costs of lockdowns AND there's a vaccine rollout that's pretty much the best in the world right now AND that we're coming out of lockdowns anyway I fail to see what the problem is?

I'll be honest and say day 1 my view was let it burn through. We'll lose people but it'll be done and dusted within a year and those that remain will have a level of immunity such that it'll still be floating around but will be a background disease. Variants seem to have accelerated the burn lat Q4 despite some restrictions but once that worked its way through we might be looking at a society that has herd immunity without any restrictions very soon. 

I agree with you on the firebreak lockdown - that only works if you actually kill the virus off for good and stop it coming back in although it does seem to have worked well in NZ and Oz but let's see how they get on as they approach their winter. 

There's still 30k or so Aussies waiting to get back in over a year later.. given the UK typically has a far greater proportion abroad at any one time, the lock the door method was never going to be realistic for the UK.. could you imagine the uproar if 500k skiing etc in march were told they couldn't come back in ?!

On the lockdown treatment side to me it seems more like radiotherapy for a cancer that's spread. It's horrific with the side effects but does erm something, until the cancer returns somewhere else and over time is just totally unsustainable.

 

There had to be a better balance and no effort has really gone into what worked and what was just pointlessly damaging. The 10pm every one leave at same time curfew being the most ridiculous.

Banning things like Cheltenham and shielding for example,might have got you to materially the same place without killing off retail and hospitality. Instead it was just mass panic and Chuck the old from hospital untested into care homes. Genius.

Ho hum,given the immense decades worth cost of all this lets hope there isn't a covid 25 or we might actually have to think through cost and benefit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

The problem is Yeadon's reactionary political sympathies, as inadvertently revealed by his Twitter account (now suppressed). His determination to undermine the Covid science comes from that, I believe.

I also suspect he's being supported by the same Far Right free market interests that financed the Great Barrington Declaration.

The various objections he's made about the legitimacy of the PCR test have all been comprehensively debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah because anybody who disagrees with the government narrative must be far right 🙄

Being "suppressed" from twitter means he must be saying something that's based on actual science, as opposed to  the pseudo-scientific quackery spouted by the mainstream media and all its pundits and talking heads. 

Hopefully at least those who "follow the science", as shills for various corporate interests get paid handsomely for their blanket recommendations. Reminds me of the medical so-called professionals who hand out drugs to children because "the science" says they're all obviously suffering from the latest made up disease. 

Finally, the way the BBC and other repositories of wisdom shill for big pharma is shameful and reminiscent of  cosmetics company claiming to protect your skin from the ravages of ageing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, captainb said:

There's still 30k or so Aussies waiting to get back in over a year later.. given the UK typically has a far greater proportion abroad at any one time, the lock the door method was never going to be realistic for the UK.. could you imagine the uproar if 500k skiing etc in march were told they couldn't come back in ?!

500K skiing in March should never have been allowed to leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, captainb said:

There's still 30k or so Aussies waiting to get back in over a year later.. given the UK typically has a far greater proportion abroad at any one time, the lock the door method was never going to be realistic for the UK.. could you imagine the uproar if 500k skiing etc in march were told they couldn't come back in ?!

On the lockdown treatment side to me it seems more like radiotherapy for a cancer that's spread. It's horrific with the side effects but does erm something, until the cancer returns somewhere else and over time is just totally unsustainable.

 

There had to be a better balance and no effort has really gone into what worked and what was just pointlessly damaging. The 10pm every one leave at same time curfew being the most ridiculous.

Banning things like Cheltenham and shielding for example,might have got you to materially the same place without killing off retail and hospitality. Instead it was just mass panic and Chuck the old from hospital untested into care homes. Genius.

Ho hum,given the immense decades worth cost of all this lets hope there isn't a covid 25 or we might actually have to think through cost and benefit.

 

Agree on lock the door method but it would be possible to do it IF it was announced with enough lead time. 

I agree with your analogy. Radiotherapy will eventually kill the patient, or the cancer both slowly and nastily so no easy choices. 

Again, I am not a fan of lockdowns and some of the nonsense was just insane. 10 pm kick everyone out the pubs and into the streets to crack on with cheaper booze from the offy and play cricket in the middle of the road. Pure genius lol. 

It's easy to judge now but twelve months ago it was a panic. The government resisted all calls to place any restrictions and people were taking the opposite view that the govt was just inept or the EU was over reacting. Now we have a lot of data and experience in this and we should be able to tailor the responses accordingly. One area that the WHO deem critical is testing so I guess this is why they're getting school kids tested twice a week and trying to roll that out to all adults (unless i heard wrong). 

The cost is crazy for sure! Let us hope this is a one off and there's not another spike or mutation that makes it much more deadly and/or contagious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pindar said:

Yeah because anybody who disagrees with the government narrative must be far right 🙄

Being "suppressed" from twitter means he must be saying something that's based on actual science, as opposed to  the pseudo-scientific quackery spouted by the mainstream media and all its pundits and talking heads. 

Hopefully at least those who "follow the science", as shills for various corporate interests get paid handsomely for their blanket recommendations. Reminds me of the medical so-called professionals who hand out drugs to children because "the science" says they're all obviously suffering from the latest made up disease. 

Finally, the way the BBC and other repositories of wisdom shill for big pharma is shameful and reminiscent of  cosmetics company claiming to protect your skin from the ravages of ageing. 

 

Yeadon's personal twitter account revealed him to be a Powellite bigot. He censored himself to avoid any further embarrassment.

The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). AIER’s President is the leading Austrian school economist Edward P. Stringham, a Research Fellow with The Independent Institute – another market-oriented think-tank that has regularly questioned the science of man-made climate change and received Koch funding, as well as support from ExxonMobil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.