Our human rights have been taken away

[Soph7777]

I know it's for a good cause.

I know it's to save lives.

But our basic human rights have been taken from under us, in the short space of a week.

I find this part most of all the scariest.

I'm really struggling mentally with government control to this extent.

How long can this last before people lose their minds and rebel?

Most of us have been abiding by it very well. I have even though I seem to have a Gestapo like son in the kitchen this morning questioning every trip - I have work post to take out later which is unavoidable and means he will still have food to eat. I park right by the post box and am out of the car for about 30 seconds.

Lots of people are allowed to be out for all kinds of reasons many very very confidential and amount to sensitive/special category data about serious health conditions which they have no legal obligation to tell all the neighbours about.

fa you are really not obliged to stay on the thread.

I've got no interest in what she's wearing or what she's doing. I don't curtain twitch in real life or online. You were the one who brought her clothes into it.

Track and trace instantly with help of phone data. that really IS sinister! We really should not start accepting this kind of tracking by governments, it could easily lead to a lot more control under "normal" circumstances as well.

I can't fathom why we didn't instantly run to experts in this field namely Taiwan.

Our systems are too slow to respond.

1forsorrow I brought her clothes into it because you said she had a prescription hidden in a pocket...you apparently live in my estate and know where I live and the structure of my home and how my home looks onto my neighbours better than I do! Anyway must dash, I have curtains to twitch

Some people need their human rights taken from them because they're fucking stupid.

In times of crisis, possibly acceptable even if questionable. But can you really not see how this sort of rhetoric is dangerous and a slippery slope?

Track and trace instantly with help of phone data.

It’s interesting that people say on other threads we should learn from South Korea but when it comes down to it we don’t want the same solutions. I would prefer not to have this too.

cornishdreams1 The point I was raising wasn't to criticise the current response, which as said I broadly agree with, but to emphasise the possible future consequences of giving the state too much power - or in other words the principle of the thing rather than any one passing detail

Very few would argue against these extra powers right now, and for good reason, but even in the middle of a crisis "right now" isn't the only thing which counts and going forward I'd suggest there are rather too many who'll consider them too appealing to relinquish easily

Yes fresh Taiwan have handled this brilliantly, we have a lot to learn from them. HK too, another great example. They had the benefit of experience from SARS etc it must be noted, and you can see from their swift action and response, it has really helped with CV.

"shouldn't there be public debate on who gets the last ventilators and thus has a chance to the right to life?"

This has already been agreed by the experts, as it is should be - not suitable for public debate

Official guidance sets out rules for doctors triaging critical care in UK

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/revealed-official-guidance-doctors-decide-coronavirus-patients/

• provides "algorithm" to guide doctors
• says patients to be considered by "frailty score"

....... Admissions to be made on the basis of “medical benefit, taking into account the likelihood that the person will recover to an outcome that is acceptable to them and within a period of time consistent with the diagnosis,” ...... They have been produced in collaboration with NHS England and a cross-specialty clinical group, supported by the specialist societies and Royal Colleges

I can't fathom why we didn't instantly run to experts in this field namely Taiwan.

Taiwan did very well, but largely in part to central systems that were set up after SARS. These took budget before the pandemic was even around but also time. So we’d have to have done the same during Brexit mess with no indication of needing it.

You have not lost your human rights. You have been protected.

“There is more than one kind of freedom," said Aunt Lydia. "Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it.”

cornish owns the thread. You are welcome to it. Enjoy the ranting.

Track and trace instantly with help of phone data

that really IS sinister! We really should not start accepting this kind of tracking by governments, it could easily lead to a lot more control under "normal" circumstances as well.

But that is how Singapore and South Korea have managed to contain it so well.

"Track and trace instantly with help of phone data."

That is partly what has enabled some countries like Singapore, SKorea and Taiwan to have much lower death rates than Western countries

• and hence shorter lockdowns than otherwise, or indeed no lockdown - like Taiwan iirc

Certainties have vanished, almost overnight. That is what is troubling to so many people. It's a far wider question than Covid. We kidded ourselves that we had freedom. And now we discover that we never did. Not really. It was all an illusion. That's scary. But I'd agree that our perceived rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilities. With personal responsibility seeming to have taken a backseat over the past few decades, it's maybe now a hard concept for some to get their heads around.

Anyone who thought that freedom was something that just existed as a natural right was very naive. I spent a substantial part of my childhood outside the UK, in countries where there's no way to maintain the illusion that the government could not use the military to curtail or remove your freedoms at any moment, and soldiers a visible presence to remind anyone who forgets. This is the reality under which some people already live and always have. Freedom is a societal construct. It's an important one, and one worth defending, but it isn't ever something that just exists in some sort of natural, easy way.

Democracies are always the result of a bargain between governed and those who govern. What's happening in the UK, and many other countries, right now is a temporary shift in the balance in order to limit the number of deaths caused by a pandemic as much as possible. There is always a danger of the balance not shifting back, but in the UK that danger is relatively low. I'd worry more about the countries that were under dictatorships until relatively recently, or where totalitarian rule existed within living memory.

Part of the reason the OP is getting so much pushback is that her last post contained a rather horrifying statement about it not being reasonable to expect her to care about the deaths of 90 year olds if it meant that her freedom was curtailed. That post was deleted because replies were going in a predictably "yeah so about that statement" direction, and this one probably will be too as the OP isn't getting the response she was looking for.

It's not wrong to be worried about the long term implications of all this. It is wrong to be blatantly callous towards the people who will die if it isn't done.

There are no easy pain-free solutions

Everything involves cost in money, lives, rights, convenience .... or some combination of all

puzzled We have definitely had our systems tested with brexit, and now with coronavirus. I definitely agree with you that some restrictions and checks need to be in place. For far too long we have been very complacent about the foundations of democracy, the judiciary and the power base in this country, and I agree we should always be mindful of the privileges we have. We do have also have outside agencies that monitor too, so that is another level of reassurance.

I am sure some governments, not ours, but some will take full advantage of the situation. In fact I would bet a very large sum of money that this will happen, and not necessarily in all the usual places. The consequences of CV are going to ripple far and wide.

In the West we are not set up as well and it’s not a switch you can flick taking us from the freedoms we have to dealing with a pandemic well.

Given a choice would we implement the same after this is over?

There is certainly a reasonable debate to be held on
how many lives saved vs how much money over the next 5 years

but it needs to be framed sensitively
and to avoid Social Darwinism or othering of the elderly and of younger ones with longterm health conditions

marsha I think I would like to see a swifter response, and safety nets for the old and vulnerable that are currently not there. Same for those using food banks. Ideally we would see a more coordinated approach.

This is not a criticism by the way, because I think the gov have done a good job managing the best way they can.

*"Track and trace instantly with help of phone data."

That is partly what has enabled some countries like Singapore, SKorea and Taiwan to have much lower death rates than Western countries

• and hence shorter lockdowns than otherwise, or indeed no lockdown - like Taiwan iirc*

Indeed, widespread mask wearing has also been credited (Dr. Pak-Leung Ho, Head of Centre for Infection @ Honk Kong Uni of Med). There is more we could be doing, if only stock was available. The fact that it isn't so any masks we can get hold of are (rightly) going to frontline medical staff, is a missed opportunity.

There are definitely things we lagged with and would be better at next time one hopes

• PPE
• medical kit
• masks

-food yes But I don’t think I’d welcome whole-scale to freedoms such as phone privacy.

And interesting debate though

Some people need their human rights taken from them because they're fucking stupid

Exactly the sort of attitude I worry will gain more traction as a result of this crisis

Probably it would have been best not to respond, but just out of interest, who would you wish to be in charge of deciding which people are fit to receive human rights and which aren't?