Coronavirus and "human rights"

[lightand]

I was thinking to start a thread about this, this morning, but couldnt think of quite the right words.
Now I have been on a thread, and with the permission of another poster, I am reposting her words here.

"A year ago if you'd told me what the rules would be I wouldn't have believed you. I would have thought it a human rights abuse. I feel scared, unsafe. I'm living in a world where the government can put law abiding citizens into solitary confinement. That's fucking terrifying. I couldn't escape it. I couldn't escape what they did. Nothing feels safe, knowing they can take everything. Take away your loved ones."
[She wrote it in the context of living alone and being separated from loved ones].

I think this will be one of the many enduring memories when people look back on what has happened in the last year. That what we think of as human rights, were, and still are, being easily taken away from us.

I believe this is a forum - there is no requirement to have a 'normal conversation' - people can choose to lurk on threads or just say one word or whatever and then just piss off if they want. I wouldn't treat a forum post - with strangers eavesdropping - like a 'normal conversation'. That would be silly. Plus it would be like whack a mole. Incoming, incoming! All these posters telling us concerned folk how we are doing it all wrong!

People are just being human, having human concerns. Let them. Scroll past if you don't like it.

Anyway, I'm off to read about flat earths now (joke). Night.

@TravellingTilbury

I believe this is a forum - there is no requirement to have a 'normal conversation' - people can choose to lurk on threads or just say one word or whatever and then just piss off if they want. I wouldn't treat a forum post - with strangers eavesdropping - like a 'normal conversation'. That would be silly. Plus it would be like whack a mole. Incoming, incoming! All these posters telling us concerned folk how we are doing it all wrong!

People are just being human, having human concerns. Let them. Scroll past if you don't like it.

Anyway, I'm off to read about flat earths now (joke). Night.

Brilliant. You actually said that this is a conversation and that’s why you were critical of other posters.

Like @riveted1 I’m open to have my mind changed. I’m not dismissing concerns about freedoms. I’m actively asking for any reasoning behind views that differ from my current one and it’s like pulling teeth.

Surely the hallmark of inappropriate restrictions is where the 'thinking citizen on the clapham omnibus' cannot see the reason for the restrictions, but central government impose them anyway.

Here, on the other hand, we have a new virus which transmits easily during normal social contact, and renders enough people seriously ill, to overwhelm health care facilities.

The only way to leash it, until mass vaccination leads to herd immunity without the swathes of deaths that wild infection would cause, is to restrict social contact until it's safe not to.

That's what we've been doing since March 2020; we've tried twice to lift the restrictions before vaccination, and it surged back. I don't blame governments for being just a little scared of easing too soon and releasing the exponential growth again.

Yes, it's crappy, but the alternative would be crappier I suspect. There's no easy path that we're not taking, the whole world is struggling to some degree, and we'll emerge out the other side - battered and bruised, but recognisable.

riveted1 Right now, I'm aware of overwhelming, robust, scientific evidence to suggest the current restrictions are necessary and in the best of interest of public health. In contrast, I haven't seen any reliable articles or commentary that would suggest otherwise, and that the government are using this situation to control us and gain power. I'm keen and open to hear this point of view, if someone would explain it to me.

I can't speak for TravellingTilbury but I have concerns about the restrictions. I don't think there's a huge sinister plan afoot, but (a) I don't think all the measures have been/are proportionate, and (b) I am concerned about opportunistic power and what they've learnt about manipulating the behaviour of the population.

In terms of whether measures are proportionate - ultimately to stop the spread of covid we should all have isolated from each other at the start. Every individual alone. But there are reasons why this wasn't expected or enforced. Perhaps you view this as purely a practical consideration - how would housing work if we were all to be separated? - but I thought there were some humane concerns eg. DC going between separated patents' households, care visits, and so on. What concerns me is the humane side of stuff that was or is being missed. I don't think anyone should have been made to be alone in the first lockdown, for example. No matter what it meant for virus spread.

In terms of opportunistic power and so on, they thought the public wouldn't adhere to lockdown as well as we did. They've learnt something about us, and wielding power over us, for future opportunities. It's also convenient that protest is illegal. I mean, the most caring cuddly fluffy government wants to control it's citizens, even if it was just to make us eat enough vegetables or whatever. There doesn't have to be a particular sinister conspiracy to be concerned about the level of control they now have and how it could be used in the wrong hands. And frankly I don't think the Tories are to be trusted to have our best interests at heart - there's been plenty of protests against their policies, rather convenient to make it illegal to dissent "because covid". To be clear, I'm not suggesting it's all part of some master plan, but they will use the situation to their own ends.

I have wondered before how the government got so much compliance during the wars.

And it is worrying how quickly things can change. Like I always knew life could quickly change, I never imagined atrocities happening abroad couldn't happen here.

I wonder how much compliance relies on consent and approval. How many people have to disagree with a government before it falls?

I find the 3.5% study interesting. Apparently no movement that has had at least 3.5% of a population actively supporting it has failed to make a change.

Interesting times.

I do believe we have libertarians in government, but whether they feel liberty is for all or just their mates is the next test.

@TravellingTilbury

It's odd because I'm not even trying to persuade anyone about anything. And yet there are certain posters that are desperate, desperate to shut down perfectly normal human, conversations that are - not at all harmful - about concerns about human rights - per the original post.

This is a forum for chatting! If people don't want to read, scroll on. But the policing is unreal (sorry, faux 'concern'). It's really inauthentic, that's what so odd. Just let people have different views without trying to tell them their views are right or wrong.

The links you posted aren’t with the intention of persuading anyone to your way of thinking? If I post a link it’s because I find the information useful and think others would find it useful/educational. But you don’t want to discuss information that you contributed (unprompted and completely voluntarily). Opinions matter, debate matters and that means all sides getting an equal opportunity to be aired and questioned. No information is so infallible it should never be questioned I’m sure you would agree.

Your last paragraph is just contradicting itself, so people are welcome to chat but only if that doesn’t involve disagreeing (with you specifically I suspect)? You clearly dislike the ‘policing’ but have literally tried to do it yourself within the paragraph! The passive aggressive language isn’t particularly helpful either - have some conviction in what your saying.

If you don’t want to get involved in discussions that question you specifically there’s no compulsion to, read and scroll on, but it’s clearly bothering you that some people have asked you to expand.

I agree with this, BUT our governments have always been able to enact emergency powers/new laws etc and there is always the potential for such laws to be used for nefarious reasons. When Blair introduced some of the anti-terrorism legislation, there was a lot of concern about potential misuse of those powers (and I think there may have been examples of this).

Maybe some people just didn't realise until this pandemic the power governments have over citizens and that is why they turn to conspiracy theories.

Maybe some people just didn't realise until this pandemic the power governments have over citizens.

Posted the above too soon!

There doesn't have to be a particular sinister conspiracy to be concerned about the level of control they now have and how it could be used in the wrong hands

I agree with this, BUT our governments have always been able to enact emergency powers/new laws etc and there is always the potential for such laws to be used for nefarious reasons. When Blair introduced some of the anti-terrorism legislation, there was a lot of concern about potential misuse of those powers (and I think there may have been examples of this).

Maybe some people just didn't realise until this pandemic the power governments have over citizens and that is why they turn to conspiracy theories.

Maybe some people just didn't realise until this pandemic the power governments have over citizens.

Human rights do not exist. They are not a condition inherently born with the human condition. Those rights have been fought for by many people pushing for legislation through elected governments.

Those rights can disappear overnight. A global health pandemic, a world war, a climate catastrophe, we are all subject to the policies of our governments unless we do a revolution. Very few of us want to do one if we have a job, a mortgage, food in fridge and an ok life.

Oh ffs, I need coffee!

Those rights can disappear overnight. A global health pandemic, a world war, a climate catastrophe, we are all subject to the policies of our governments unless we do a revolution. Very few of us want to do one if we have a job, a mortgage, food in fridge and an ok life

Yep, this is all very true.

@AnniversaryScaresMe

In terms of whether measures are proportionate - ultimately to stop the spread of covid we should all have isolated from each other at the start. Every individual alone. But there are reasons why this wasn't expected or enforced. Perhaps you view this as purely a practical consideration - how would housing work if we were all to be separated? - but I thought there were some humane concerns eg. DC going between separated patents' households, care visits, and so on. What concerns me is the humane side of stuff that was or is being missed. I don't think anyone should have been made to be alone in the first lockdown, for example. No matter what it meant for virus spread.

What specifically of the current restrictions do you think are disproportionate?

No I don't think lockdown 1 should have consisted of every individual isolated (however it should've happened far sooner), and I agree there were things missed that have now been rectified in our current situation. I think the lack of bubbles for single people at the beginning was justified (i.e, the least at risk people were isolated to help prevent transmission - if physically or mentally unwell the restrictions did not apply) and now that we know they contribute very little to spread, they're here to stay. And I say all this as a single adult who's mental health has definitely taken a hit the last year, I'm not typing from a lovely 5 bed house with my gorgeous family

In terms of opportunistic power and so on, they thought the public wouldn't adhere to lockdown as well as we did. They've learnt something about us, and wielding power over us, for future opportunities.

In comparison to other countries, the UK has a shocking level of compliance (largely driven by government failures leading to a complete breakdown of trust). See how in NZ they've take a proactive approach of demonstrating the benefits of lockdown etc, and people are happy to make the decision to comply. I really don't think the government are rubbing their hands and thinking how well they've manipulated us and what else we can be made to do.

It's also convenient that protest is illegal.

But is isn't illegal to protest? You can organise online community groups, tweet about it, contact your MP, put banners up outside your house, go for a run wearing a sign or whatever. See how Greta Thunberg has very successfully moved all her climate change protests online since last year. I find that kind of statement a bit alarmist, along with that our "freedom of religion" has been removed. It's illegal to gather in large groups to minimise transmission, but that doesn't stop you finding alternatives. If at any point freedom to protest was actually illegal, then yes, I would be extremely concerned!

I don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else. I wish I was naive and trusted that the government were only doing what was necessary to protect our health and for the minimum length of time possible. Sadly, I don’t. As for the end game - power and control. Those are ends in itself. Why has every other totalitarianism regime behaved in the way it has?

To quote George Orwell ‘“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

*totalitarian

riveted1 No I don't think lockdown 1 should have consisted of every individual isolated (however it should've happened far sooner), and I agree there were things missed that have now been rectified in our current situation. I think the lack of bubbles for single people at the beginning was justified (i.e, the least at risk people were isolated to help prevent transmission - if physically or mentally unwell the restrictions did not apply) and now that we know they contribute very little to spread, they're here to stay.

Why don't you think every individual should have been separated? If that would stop the virus spreading.
How can you possibly think it's ok for people living alone to be cut of from meeting their basic human need for interaction and touch? If it's to stop the virus spreading then everyone should have done it, not just us unlucky ones. It was utterly inhumane and frankly the apathy to this evil legislation scares me more than the government doing it in the first place.

@RedcurrantPuff

I don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else. I wish I was naive and trusted that the government were only doing what was necessary to protect our health and for the minimum length of time possible. Sadly, I don’t. As for the end game - power and control. Those are ends in itself. Why has every other totalitarianism regime behaved in the way it has?

To quote George Orwell ‘“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

Of course you don’t have to explain anything but it’d be nice if you did particularly since your subtly insulting those with the opposing view.

@AnniversaryScaresMe

riveted1 No I don't think lockdown 1 should have consisted of every individual isolated (however it should've happened far sooner), and I agree there were things missed that have now been rectified in our current situation. I think the lack of bubbles for single people at the beginning was justified (i.e, the least at risk people were isolated to help prevent transmission - if physically or mentally unwell the restrictions did not apply) and now that we know they contribute very little to spread, they're here to stay.

Why don't you think every individual should have been separated? If that would stop the virus spreading.
How can you possibly think it's ok for people living alone to be cut of from meeting their basic human need for interaction and touch? If it's to stop the virus spreading then everyone should have done it, not just us unlucky ones. It was utterly inhumane and frankly the apathy to this evil legislation scares me more than the government doing it in the first place.

I don't think every individual should be isolated because this is a careful balancing act between minimising spread of coronavirus, and minimising other harms to public health. There is an overall "social budget" whereby every interaction currently risks the transmission of CV, which can begin a cascade of infection that may eventually cause long term health issues, hospital admission or death. Each time CV is transmitted, there is a new opportunity to acquire mutations which will lead to the emergence of new strains. This is why we want to keep infection down whilst protecting the general public from other forms of harm.

For some individuals (e.g., those unable to care for themselves, those who are mentally ill, those who are living in unsafe situations), the risk of isolation is far greater, which is why they were initially prioritised over single people living alone who did not have any risk factors.

But that point is moot, as I said in my previous post, no one is currently forced to live alone? Support bubbles are here to stay and there are no plans to remove them.

riveted1
I don't think every individual should be isolated because this is a careful balancing act between minimising spread of coronavirus, and minimising other harms to public health. There is an overall "social budget" whereby every interaction currently risks the transmission of CV, which can begin a cascade of infection that may eventually cause

But you think it's ok that people were completely isolated just because they happen to live alone? Why don't the health risks matter for them?

I don't think it's ever acceptable to force people into isolation like that. Totally inhumane and unfair to force some people to go without meeting a basic human need, whilst allowing others to have close contact with people.

I'm terrified. The government made me go through that torture and they could do it again.

@AnniversaryScaresMe

riveted1 I don't think every individual should be isolated because this is a careful balancing act between minimising spread of coronavirus, and minimising other harms to public health. There is an overall "social budget" whereby every interaction currently risks the transmission of CV, which can begin a cascade of infection that may eventually cause

But you think it's ok that people were completely isolated just because they happen to live alone? Why don't the health risks matter for them?

I don't think it's ever acceptable to force people into isolation like that. Totally inhumane and unfair to force some people to go without meeting a basic human need, whilst allowing others to have close contact with people.

I'm terrified. The government made me go through that torture and they could do it again.

@AnniversaryScaresMe I clearly covered that in my full reply to your post. I am sorry you also struggled alone in lockdown, as I did, but as I have said twice now, support bubbles are fortunately here to stay

My reply to your post:

*There is an overall "social budget" whereby every interaction currently risks the transmission of CV, which can begin a cascade of infection that may eventually cause
long term health issues, hospital admission or death. Each time CV is transmitted, there is a new opportunity to acquire mutations which will lead to the emergence of new strains. This is why we want to keep infection down whilst protecting the general public from other forms of harm.

For some individuals (e.g., those unable to care for themselves, those who are mentally ill, those who are living in unsafe situations), the risk of isolation is far greater, which is why they were initially prioritised over single people living alone who did not have any risk factors.

But that point is moot, as I said in my previous post, no one is currently forced to live alone? Support bubbles are here to stay and there are no plans to remove them.*

The problem with any discussion around restrictions and human rights is that no proper cost-benefit analysis has ever been done by the government - their recent effort was really not worthy of the term - and therefore there is no basis for sensible discussion. The government has not been at all clear about what it's trying to achieve or why. Therefore one 'side' says that 'lockdown works' - because in the short term, the more you isolate people the less they will transmit viruses - and the other 'side' points out its flaws - too many to list. In a very basic sense both sides are correct. However, what should have been discussed far earlier were the long-term purposes of policies. At first, we were using non-pharma interventions to try to stop mass healthcare collapse and protect the old and CEV, which in turn mutated into protecting everyone as if everyone were at risk - which they are categorically not -, which in turn became pushing down case numbers, as opposed to numbers of people with symptoms.
During this time, it has become unacceptable to ask whether it is 'worth it', yet that question is exactly what the government ought to be looking at and exactly what people ought to be discussing. We only, as a society, denigrate those concerned with the loss of human rights and the increasingly overarching and draconian legislation because we have never had to think about what life is like without them.

riveted1
But you were replying to my point saying that some restrictions are too much. I stand by my point. Yet you continue to defend what the government did.

How can we trust that support bubbles are here to stay when I trusted they'd exist from the start, and they didn't?

I understand the "social budget" concept but it's wrong to give some people so much more than others!
Social contact without having to distance is such a basic need that it's crossing a huge line to have removed it. NOTHING justifies it. No one should have been forced to be alone.

@AnniversaryScaresMe

riveted1 But you were replying to my point saying that some restrictions are too much. I stand by my point. Yet you continue to defend what the government did.

How can we trust that support bubbles are here to stay when I trusted they'd exist from the start, and they didn't?

I understand the "social budget" concept but it's wrong to give some people so much more than others!
Social contact without having to distance is such a basic need that it's crossing a huge line to have removed it. NOTHING justifies it. No one should have been forced to be alone.

Does the fact I don't know why someone would do something mean they haven't done it? Because that's what some people on this thread are implying.

I don't know why we went to war with Iraq. I know why we were told we were going to war, and I remember the falsified evidence used to persuade the population that we were in very great and imminent danger, but to this day I don't know what the underlying true reason was for it. That doesn't mean it was done for the reasons said (we now know it wasn't). Many people, including me, had huge reservations and even protested against it. We were treated then as we are being treated now.

sorry @AnniversaryScaresMe I have no idea how I quoted you into my post as it wasn't intended to be directed at anyone but the thread as a whole

@dividedwefall

I don't know why we went to war with Iraq. I know why we were told we were going to war, and I remember the falsified evidence used to persuade the population that we were in very great and imminent danger, but to this day I don't know what the underlying true reason was for it. That doesn't mean it was done for the reasons said (we now know it wasn't). Many people, including me, had huge reservations and even protested against it. We were treated then as we are being treated now

Ah ok - so would it be fair to say you think the general public hasn't been given enough evidence or rationale for the restrictions? What changes would you want to see that you think would be better treatment?

@dividedwefall Thank you for mentioning the parallel with Iraq. Tony Blair's MASSIVE lie is the reason I don't trust politicians at all, with anything. We are indeed being gaslighted now as we were then - the present crop of liars think we've forgotten that. We haven't. I refused to believe in Covid for quite some time, because of that massive lie (and media scaremongering about countless other things); even now, I'm only just believing in Covid. And I'm still far from convinced that lockdown, with all the massive damage it is going to entail, is the lesser or two evils.