Would you kill your pet if ordered to by the gov't?

[JackiePlace]

I read in the news this morning that at the beginning of the Covid crisis the gov't considered ordering the culling of all domestic cats in order to prevent the spread of Covid. This idea was later abandoned after it was proven that cats couldn't transmit Covid to humans.
AIBU to think that this would have caused a mass uprising? We are a nation of animal lovers, after all. Or would people have accepted it as they did some of the other draconian regulations (not visiting dying relatives, etc).

www.lbc.co.uk/news/govt-cat-cull-covid-pandemic/

Speaking as a fellow early adopter of not locking down, it's only hypocritical to object to the Partygate gatherings if one was also trying to prevent other people from doing it. You aren't a hypocrite if you didn't observe lockdown and didn't try and make other people do it either.

I think it was a weird kind of 'group think'. I don't understand what drives it, but it was similar with the death of Princess Diana. All of a sudden, everyone was expected to feel and do certain things, and anyone who didn't comply was vilified

It's a fair point, DieZensur, but then I've never been susceptible to "group think" and the mindless vilification which all too often goes with it.
Within the law I've always preferred to think for myself - listening to different points of view of course, but making (and taking responsibility for) my own choices

I think if I'd been alive with my dog at the outbreak of WW2 I'd have had him PTS.

The bombing would have terrified him and there is the fear that I could be killed but he may be injured, buried alive or burned.

I completely understand why so many chose euthanasia for their beloved pets.

No way would I do that. They’d have to get past me first.

Were you in favour of lockdown?

I suppose one problem with lockdown is that it suddenly became law, so there was no reasonable way to respond that was 'within the law'. Because it was all of a sudden illegal to think for oneself or to make one's own choices.

What a terrible business it was. I should really stay away from any threads to do with lockdown!

COVID is believed to have started in December 2019 by feb 2020 china was already publishing research that it was a disease of the elderly and infirm with 80% of cases mild. That was published on the 18th of feb we didn't lockdown until the 23rd of March when it was blatantly obvious the healthy weren't at risk in large numbers, hence Borris's let the bodies pile up comments he was being pushed down a road he didn't want to go.

He's mad a hatter but actually he was the one that had the best ideas out of all of them. Party gate was them actually following the science!!

I suppose one problem with lockdown is that it suddenly became law, so there was no reasonable way to respond that was 'within the law'.

Particularly given the dubiously lawful attempts to criminalise protest entirely.

@CrotchetyCrocheting but this logic didn’t exist during covid. My husband was with my while I was at home in labour and for hours at the hospital but had to leave 40 Minutes after I’d given birth while I was in HDU. Because then he was a covid risk. Despite us both being tested and negative. The rules were never about logic. One woman on here had the police called and the warned her for sleeping in an outhouse on her property with her kids. It was never about risk most of the time just about compliance.

If you had a cat and they were to be culled it would not have mattered if your cat lived in the attic alone. The logic would have been ‘the rules are the rules - doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not - the cat has to die’

I'm not in the UK so am not really familiar with your logic or lack there of over there tbh.

Neighbours would have reported that you had a cat back in the covid dobbing in days. Would that happen again

There was no logic. There was we need to be seen to be doing something, this is something, so let's do it!

The World War 2 comparison is not a reasonable one as there was not noise or bombing with Covid 19.

I expect the consideration was only for a very brief period, and the attempt to give this story prominence is to detract from the criminal behaviour that some of the other leaked messages imply.

Perhaps it is where the phrase a 'dead cat story' to distract from another issue comes from.

During the foot and mouth epidemic 20 years ago the government carried out the slaughter of millions of animals - some of whom were pets. Many millions of these animals had absolutely nothing wrong with them, but were unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of another case. At the time the government did not actually have a legal basis for the slaughter - they had to have the permission of the owner and many tried to resist. A few years later the government passed an 'animal health bill' which gave them those legal powers. So actually they could order the slaughter of any animals they chose, if there was a disease involved. I doubt they'd come after dogs and cats though - guaranteed to lose the next election.

Yes - I wonder how many people - particularly people who were otherwise totally isolated - only retained their sanity because of companion animals, especially cats and dogs.

And the fact that scarily the police were making their own law up for the first several weeks.
I would have assumed they'd have been carefully briefed on it, but no...
There was no law even in place for the first three days, so they were enforcing something that they hadn't seen and didn't yet exist.

People carry a heavier one - yet suggest that family size is limited and all hell breaks loose1

No way, I'd go on the run with my cat and my kids before I'd let anyone take her, she's 19 but still has lots of life in her.

I would agree that most animals are considerably superior to many, many humans.

We murder around 80k animals a day, so killing them for a disease isn't as horrifying as killing pets. It should never have happened we should have refused to export to countries bothered about foot and mouth and used the meat internally. We need to go veggi as a country anyway, even COVID likely wouldn't have happened if we didn't have the meat trade!! It's like CJD most of us carry the prion without any effects you need to be genetically susceptible yet we slaughter thousands of animals!

can you elaborate, in what sense are they superior?

Those who supported the lockdowns mostly would have, yes. Those who gave up all freedoms quicker than the PM's fart and supported the destruction of life and health that the lockdowns caused would have followed absolutely any instruction, without any questions whatsoever, same way as they did with supporting anything they were told to support.

This omits the aspect of ongoing restriction support that came from privilege. That is, people who weren't ever going to be the ones to bear the brunt of it not seeing the downsides. I don't believe that all the people whose support was based on I'm alright Jack with my nice house, decent income, online shopping and plenty of Internet would've been fine with culling their pets. It just isn't true that all lockdown supporters would've willingly embraced suffering for themselves.

I don't think people would have needed to kill their cats, but they'd have had to keep them inside.
Tbh even if people didn't comply other people would. If I thought your cat would kill my kids I'd kill your cat. Pretty sure I wouldn't need to though because they'd be a queue of people ahead of me.
We all like to think we would be so different but would we? Look at the Nazis. Look at the Millgran Experiment.
When I was young if your cat/dog fell pregnant youd just drown the litter. Ordinary folk like you and me.
I suspect in years to come (not my lifetime) people will be studying history and saying ".....and then they took them out of their pens and ate them!!!"

🙌 yep.
Sadly most people just weren’t aware of what they so willingly gave up….and sadly still aren’t!