Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Message added by Grumpy Owl,

This topic is for all general discussion regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are of course numerous other related topics for discussing specific aspects of this pandemic in more detail. And there are other parts of this forum for more 'off-topic' discussions.

Recommended Posts

You WILL take the vaccine....whether you like it or not 

 

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/19/medethics-2020-106435

 

Journal of medical ethics..British medical journal

 

All the justification anyone could need for compulsory vaccination

 

My only hope is that the authors names are remembered ....and in the not too distant future their status as collaborators is remembered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

 

 

Daily Mail have just published the story. I sometimes wonder if the press read this forum to get the news.

 

 

Police ARREST qualified nurse, 73, trying to take her 97-year-old dementia-hit mother from care home after nine months to be looked after by her family - and put pensioner in patrol car to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8914373/Police-ARREST-qualified-nurse-trying-97-year-old-mother-care-home.html

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Daily Mail have just published the story. I sometimes wonder if the press read this forum to get the news.

 

 

Police ARREST qualified nurse, 73, trying to take her 97-year-old dementia-hit mother from care home after nine months to be looked after by her family - and put pensioner in patrol car to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8914373/Police-ARREST-qualified-nurse-trying-97-year-old-mother-care-home.html

 

 

 

Were the cops tipped off by the care home? I'm failing to understand how the filth knew what this lady was doing in the first place. Utter trash they are. I've had enough now, I've been tipped over the edge by today's events. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Daily Mail have just published the story. I sometimes wonder if the press read this forum to get the news.

 

 

Police ARREST qualified nurse, 73, trying to take her 97-year-old dementia-hit mother from care home after nine months to be looked after by her family - and put pensioner in patrol car to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8914373/Police-ARREST-qualified-nurse-trying-97-year-old-mother-care-home.html

 

 

 

What on earth? That is sooo cruel! 

Surely the family have every right to take their family out of care if they wish.. It was certainly always the case before.

What a bloody world we live in :(

That really is just so sad :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Daily Mail have just published the story. I sometimes wonder if the press read this forum to get the news.

 

 

Police ARREST qualified nurse, 73, trying to take her 97-year-old dementia-hit mother from care home after nine months to be looked after by her family - and put pensioner in patrol car to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8914373/Police-ARREST-qualified-nurse-trying-97-year-old-mother-care-home.html

 

 

 

 

Quite a lot of folks sharing the story on social media, so maybe they feel like they have to cover it so it doesn't look suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Were the cops tipped off by the care home? I'm failing to understand how the filth knew what this lady was doing in the first place. Utter trash they are. I've had enough now, I've been tipped over the edge by today's events. 


The police are drunk on power right now and so wound up. Lockdown has turned them into f**king Nazis: 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2020 at 11:24 PM, jesuitsdidit said:

 

Will you print the reply you received please?

We need proof of incompetence where it exists.

 

I am keeping all the replies as evidence. I am waiting on the response to my most recent email which i sent over the weekend. He is in with the plan, he was asking for the Army to be involved with Track and Trace over a month ago 😠 

 

 

Edited by Alnitak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, FrankVitali said:

 

 

I'm just hoping this isn't a recently made video, that would just be demoralising!

 

I would sack the lot of em and replace them with cheaper and harder working immigrants.

 

I can just imagine the seal clapping to these vids on social media as well........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, shadowmoon said:

 

Put on some headphones and play some music.

Zone out from them.

 

accept it you mean...bury head in sand that's the problem not any more! just the  sight of a muzzle can set it off...& when encountering family all with matching muzzle ......mist 

 walking on by  & ignore, like its not happening  when the truth is all there for all to see

but they choose not too see..........   aaaagggghhhh !!!!!  my head hurts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A message for all of humanity...............Let us not forget these words final speech from the great dictator.

 

"Soldiers don't give yourselves to brutes men who despise you - enslave you  in the name of democracy  let us all unite ,do not fight for slavery fight for liberty "

 

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts, you are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men !" 

 

 

“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people”

 

Charlie Chaplin 

Edited by MR-E
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MR-E said:

A message for all of humanity...............Let us not forget these words final speech from the great dictator.

When the man famously known to be silent, breaks his silence, it is he who leaves us in silence. Amazing speech.

 

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts, you are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men !" 

 

 

“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people”

 

Charlie Chaplin 

I love that video, it's so powerful and empowering, it's the type of thing that should be shown in schools but isn't. An incredible piece of film. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, magu said:

You WILL take the vaccine....whether you like it or not 

 

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/19/medethics-2020-106435

This from that article:

Concluding thoughts

We have argued that compulsory medical intervention for the control COVID-19 would not be harder to justify, morally, than some forms of external constraint that are already being used, or have been authorised, for this same purpose.

Our arguments invoked two chief values: harm and bodily integrity. With respect to harm, compulsory medical interventions will typically be less harmful to those subjected to them than some of the external constraints currently being implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With respect to bodily integrity: in the first place, it is doubtful that the right to bodily integrity is any stronger than the rights to free movement and association engaged by external constraint; in the second place, free movement and association are severely constrained by measures such as quarantine and isolation, whereas compulsory vaccination or treatment would likely involve only a moderate interference with bodily integrity; and in the third place, the strong precedence given to bodily integrity in the case of treatments and vaccines for pandemic control is difficult to reconcile with existing law on testing for pandemic disease and on mental health treatments.

What, practically speaking follows from our argument? One possibility is that nothing follows, since the law need not always reflect morality; there can be perfectly good pragmatic or political reasons for regulating one type of intervention more stringently than another, even though the interventions are similar in their moral justifiability. We take it, however, that there is at least a defeasible case in favour of laws that treat morally similar practices similarly. Thus, our argument implies that there is at least a case for bringing law on external constraint for pandemic control and law on compulsory medical intervention for the same purpose into line. One way to do this, of course, would be to regulate the use of external constraints more stringently. Perhaps the law currently permits quarantine, isolation and lockdown too easily. But for those of us who find that hard to accept, the other possibility may be more attractive: perhaps current legal constraints on compulsory medical intervention ought to be loosened.14

To be clear, if these constraints were indeed to be loosened, safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure that medical interventions are imposed only when safe, effective and necessary, and where the degree of physical invasion that they involve is not too great. In some cases, compulsory medical intervention might be unnecessary simply because there are means short of compulsion for ensuring that (a sufficient number of) people undergo the intervention. Vaccine certification might, for example, be sufficient.37 Moreover, if compulsion were to be introduced, exceptions would need to be built in for those who are likely to suffer side effects, and—perhaps—for those who have strong moral objections or simply prefer to lower their risk to others through other means. Although we cannot defend it in full here, we think that one promising option would be for the government to offer the choice: ‘either have yourself vaccinated, or stay at home’. That would treat external constraint and medical intervention as on a par, while giving individuals greater freedom than in a situation where either external constraints or medical interventions are imposed.

 

 

Edited by sickofallthebollocks
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Daily Mail have just published the story. I sometimes wonder if the press read this forum to get the news.

 

 

Police ARREST qualified nurse, 73, trying to take her 97-year-old dementia-hit mother from care home after nine months to be looked after by her family - and put pensioner in patrol car to be sent back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8914373/Police-ARREST-qualified-nurse-trying-97-year-old-mother-care-home.html

 

 

 

 

There's no doubt journalists and govt advisors use the forum (hiya!) It's the first place you go for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Velma said:

This document is an exercise in how to circumvent human rights laws to make vaccination compulsory, without violating bodily integrity and the only way they can do this is to detain those who are “hesistant” under the Mental Health Act 1983, which permits medical treatment without consent for persons detained under the Act, even if they possess decision-making capacity.

 

I just realised this article is part of a small series of articles from The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, under the topic heading 'Pandemic Ethics'. Here is the URL: https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/pandemic-ethics

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

This from that article:

Concluding thoughts

We have argued that compulsory medical intervention for the control COVID-19 would not be harder to justify, morally, than some forms of external constraint that are already being used, or have been authorised, for this same purpose.

Our arguments invoked two chief values: harm and bodily integrity. With respect to harm, compulsory medical interventions will typically be less harmful to those subjected to them than some of the external constraints currently being implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With respect to bodily integrity: in the first place, it is doubtful that the right to bodily integrity is any stronger than the rights to free movement and association engaged by external constraint; in the second place, free movement and association are severely constrained by measures such as quarantine and isolation, whereas compulsory vaccination or treatment would likely involve only a moderate interference with bodily integrity; and in the third place, the strong precedence given to bodily integrity in the case of treatments and vaccines for pandemic control is difficult to reconcile with existing law on testing for pandemic disease and on mental health treatments.

What, practically speaking follows from our argument? One possibility is that nothing follows, since the law need not always reflect morality; there can be perfectly good pragmatic or political reasons for regulating one type of intervention more stringently than another, even though the interventions are similar in their moral justifiability. We take it, however, that there is at least a defeasible case in favour of laws that treat morally similar practices similarly. Thus, our argument implies that there is at least a case for bringing law on external constraint for pandemic control and law on compulsory medical intervention for the same purpose into line. One way to do this, of course, would be to regulate the use of external constraints more stringently. Perhaps the law currently permits quarantine, isolation and lockdown too easily. But for those of us who find that hard to accept, the other possibility may be more attractive: perhaps current legal constraints on compulsory medical intervention ought to be loosened.14

To be clear, if these constraints were indeed to be loosened, safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure that medical interventions are imposed only when safe, effective and necessary, and where the degree of physical invasion that they involve is not too great. In some cases, compulsory medical intervention might be unnecessary simply because there are means short of compulsion for ensuring that (a sufficient number of) people undergo the intervention. Vaccine certification might, for example, be sufficient.37 Moreover, if compulsion were to be introduced, exceptions would need to be built in for those who are likely to suffer side effects, and—perhaps—for those who have strong moral objections or simply prefer to lower their risk to others through other means. Although we cannot defend it in full here, we think that one promising option would be for the government to offer the choice: ‘either have yourself vaccinated, or stay at home’. That would treat external constraint and medical intervention as on a par, while giving individuals greater freedom than in a situation where either external constraints or medical interventions are imposed.

 

 

 

A great find. Pure evil psychopathy. Many thanks for drawing attention to and sharing this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"The greatest concern about challenge studies is both the safety of the participants and the impact of a death on trust in science and medicine... Despite their ethical justifiability, it is quite possible that the backlash against a death of a healthy volunteer might shut down or significantly retard the use of challenge studies, and perhaps vaccines in general."

 

Quote

"The chance of someone aged 20–30 years dying of COVID-19 is about the same as the annual risk of dying in a car accident. That is a reasonable risk to take, especially to save hundreds of thousands of lives. It is surprising challenge studies were not done sooner. Given the stakes, it is unethical not to do challenge studies."

 

Quote

"Smallpox was eradicated by 1979 through vaccination, which was mandatory in many countries (parents were fined in the UK if they did not vaccinate their baby in time). In the face of that kind of emergency, research and control are moral imperatives, even involving compulsory vaccination. There is a moral imperative to prevent and treat any disease that causes suffering and death."

 

COVID-19 human challenge studies in the UK (October 30, 2020)

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30518-X/fulltext

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...