Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

16 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

 

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

 

Their flimsy argument is that since lockdowns and quarantine are already an infringement of ECHR Article 8 and they are getting away with this curb on our rights to a private life and free movement, then they might as well remove our right to bodily integrity also.

 

Current (illegal) constraints, they admit, are psychologically damaging and cause PTSD, therefore vaccination would be preferable.

 

“Many of us would prefer being required to undergo a safe treatment or vaccination to being subjected to constraints on movement for an extended period so, if well-being is determined by preference satisfaction, compulsory medical intervention would, for many of us, be less harmful than external constraint.”

 

And then they blatantly lie: “By contrast, vaccinations typically have few side effects, and severe side effects are usually vanishingly rare.” This is not true and less so for an untried and untested vaccine for a pathogen that does not exist.

 

They argue that although we have an inalienable right to personal sovereignty over own our bodies, we are not just ourselves, because others, like loved ones, are “are part of our selves” and just as important. Therefore, intervention is justified to "save lives" and “current legal constraints on compulsory medical intervention ought to be loosened.”

 

However, if reading this distresses you... you are exempt!

 

“Perhaps the compulsion involved in compulsory vaccination or treatment would cause significant distress. However, concerns about such distress could be avoided by exempting individuals with particularly strong objections from the requirement to undergo treatment or vaccination; we are not defending the view that compulsion should be universal.”

 

Edited by Velma
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MR-E said:

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

 

Yes, accept that you can't change others  outlook, they are afraid of "4000 will die every day"  state propaganda.

You are above all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Illuminator said:

Anyone else smell ozone this morning? Same as 1st lockdown. 

 

There was something weird about the first one that I could smell a sort of bleach like disinfectant smell around parts of town, my brother who lives a mile away reported it where he was too.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£30 grand in fines for a bonfire party. Far too many people are not scared of the COVID, so they have to scare them with intergalactic fines to keep the illusion up.

 

Coronavirus police clampdown: Merseyside officers hand out £10,000 fines for bonfire

POLICE have issued three £10,000 fines for breach of coronavirus rules after revellers held a bonfire in Wirral.

Edited by Orange Alert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Velma said:

 

Their flimsy argument is that since lockdowns and quarantine are already an infringement of ECHR Article 8 and they are getting away with this curb on our rights to a private life and free movement, then they might as well remove our right to bodily integrity also.

 

Current (illegal) constraints, they admit, are psychologically damaging and cause PTSD, therefore vaccination would be preferable.

 

“Many of us would prefer being required to undergo a safe treatment or vaccination to being subjected to constraints on movement for an extended period so, if well-being is determined by preference satisfaction, compulsory medical intervention would, for many of us, be less harmful than external constraint.”

 

And then they blatantly lie: “By contrast, vaccinations typically have few side effects, and severe side effects are usually vanishingly rare.” This is not true and less so for an untried and untested vaccine for a pathogen that does not exist.

 

They argue that although we have an inalienable right to personal sovereignty over own our bodies, we are not just ourselves, because others, like loved ones, are “are part of our selves” and just as important. Therefore, intervention is justified to "save lives" and “current legal constraints on compulsory medical intervention ought to be loosened.”

 

However, if reading this distresses you... you are exempt!

 

“Perhaps the compulsion involved in compulsory vaccination or treatment would cause significant distress. However, concerns about such distress could be avoided by exempting individuals with particularly strong objections from the requirement to undergo treatment or vaccination; we are not defending the view that compulsion should be universal.”

 

Right at the end of the document

 

 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

 

There was something weird about the first one that I could smell a sort of bleach like disinfectant smell around parts of town, my brother who lives a mile away reported it where he was too.!

 

Yeah mate. Hard to explain. Very chemically. Like living next to ICI or summat. But we on the coast here with beautiful scenery.

 

Defo something in the air today. I hope it's not in my head haha

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

 

Yeah mate. Hard to explain. Very chemically. Like living next to ICI or summat. But we on the coast here with beautiful scenery.

 

Defo something in the air today. I hope it's not in my head haha

 

2 minutes ago, The Illuminator said:

 

Yeah mate. Hard to explain. Very chemically. Like living next to ICI or summat. But we on the coast here with beautiful scenery.

 

Defo something in the air today. I hope it's not in my head haha

 

It was really odd as it was in one street and not another.!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

University of Pittsburg have changed the Hippocratic Oath...

https://www.pittwire.pitt.edu/news/modern-day-hippocrates-incoming-school-medicine-students-write-their-own-oath

They slip this nice bit in at the end...
"
I will restore trust between the health care community and the population in which I serve by holding myself and others accountable, and by combating misinformation in order to improve health literacy."

They rewrote everything, but obviously they needed to remove these unimportant parts from the original:
"I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft."

Edited by John Connor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic
  • Beaujangles featured this topic

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...