Civil Rights and Covid-19

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is all of this necessary for a virus that mainly kills elderly people in the care homes? Perhaps a better strategy around care homes is what is called for and the rest of us can go on living our lives. If you want to call me selfish for having that opinion, it is a free country. Go ahead, fill your boots.

What a stupid, stupid statement. Old age is one of the factors that makes severe complications including death from COVID more likely. However what exactly are all the other people who are not as healthy as you are supposed to do. Here is a cut and paste of conditions that are the same risk factor as being 80+

  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
  • Lung cancer

Some lung conditions may increase your risk of serious illness from COVID-19, including:

  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Pulmonary fibrosis
  • Moderate to severe asthma

These include type 2 diabetes, severe obesity and serious heart diseases. High blood pressure and type 1 diabetes may increase your risk of serious COVID-19 symptoms.

Your risk of serious illness is higher if you have heart diseases such as cardiomyopathy, pulmonary hypertension, congenital heart disease, heart failure or coronary artery disease.

People who currently have cancer are at higher risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19.

Sickle cell anemia is another condition that increases the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms.

Conditions that affect your immune system and increase your risk of serious illness from COVID-19 include:

  • Organ transplants
  • Cancer treatments

Your risk of serious symptoms from COVID-19 may be increased if you have conditions such as:

  • Bone marrow transplant
  • HIV/AIDS
  • Long-term use of prednisone or similar drugs that weaken your immune system

If you have chronic kidney disease, you're at higher risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19. You may have a higher risk of being ill with serious COVID-19 symptoms if you have chronic liver disease.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coro...

Pondering

Not to mention just because someone lives doesn't mean they didn't need hospital treatment. 

That older people are more at risk does not mean young people are not at risk. It means the opposite. It mean no matter what your age you are at risk but the older you get the more risk there is. 

There is only one metric that matters.  One that demolishes every single argument you could present.

Hospitals are saying they are close to capacity and will have to start cancelling surgeries if the transmission rate does not slow down.  It isn't government. It isn't just the administration. It isn't just a few nurses and the odd doctor. It is those who are on the front lines. 

I bet not a single one of your crackpot doctors is actually treating anyone for Covid-19.

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
Social distancing and limiting social contacts are far more effective tactics than wearing masks (although I agree with that added degree of protection). The pandemic has definitely shown that there are serious short-comings to how we operate long term care facilities including having people living in wards instead of private rooms and sharing bathrooms as if they were living in a youth hostel. Then there are the deplorable workforce conditions of low pay, part-time, moving from one facility to another, lack of decent supplies (both PPE, sanitation and nutrition) and just a total lack of respect and dignity for clients living there. And it's not just seniors living in long term care facilities. It sounds like freedom is for the young, the healthy and the well-off. The rest who need protection should just accept their fate that they are "lesser" human beings.

I have seriously had enough of this. I have been a part of this online community for 15 years. What is it in my posts that is causing you to read into that I'm for a survival-of-the-fittest approach where the strong survive and the weak die? I thought that whatever our differences we would at least agree that our common goal is that we want to reduce harm to the general population. I've been pretty active in discussions around conditions in the nursing homes and what mistakes are being made. I've also mentioned that many people advocating that we "stay at home," don't seem to notice either the covid risks to essential workers who don't have that option, or the other occupational hazards that people are exposed to at work. One example I can think of off the top of my head is a retired couple who instead of going to a restaurant has that restaurant deliver take-out, and in their moralistic idea that they are "staying safe," seem unaware that having their meal delivered exposes the driver to the occupational hazard of driving. I've also mentioned the possiblity of modifying the pension scheme so that older workers in high-risk industries (i.e. meat packing plants) can take time off work during this time of crisis. Why hasn't that idea generated any interest? And when did it all of a sudden become carved in stone the idea that the current covid measures are necessary to the point that if one questions their necessity or tries to have a nuanced conversation about the risks to public health of covid versus the risks to public health of the interventions that all of a sudden you are a covid denier or you don't care about the lives of the vulnerable? Blanket restrictions create resentment and animosity between certain segments of the population, and we can already see protests against that happening in Europe. Do you think that kind of resentment generated among the population is good for long-term social cohesion? If you know that blanket restrictions can generate that kind of social unrest, maybe rethinking them and having a more nuanced strategy is a better idea? I'm doing my best to have a civilized conversation, but I'm really not feeling any reciprocal goodwill from those who disagree with me on this topic.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
That older people are more at risk does not mean young people are not at risk. It means the opposite. It mean no matter what your age you are at risk but the older you get the more risk there is.

Life has risks. The adult thing to do is accept that and navigate accordingly, not to try and control other people's behaviours.

Pondering wrote:
I bet not a single one of your crackpot doctors is actually treating anyone for Covid-19.

If the only argument you can use is to call someone names like "crackpot" that says more about you than the person you are attacking. If you had actually taken the time to view the full video I posted to open the "herd immunity" thread, you would have seen that the doctor interviewed actually did spend time in New York area hospitals during the height of the crisis.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Is all of this necessary for a virus that mainly kills elderly people in the care homes? Perhaps a better strategy around care homes is what is called for and the rest of us can go on living our lives. If you want to call me selfish for having that opinion, it is a free country. Go ahead, fill your boots.

What a stupid, stupid statement. Old age is one of the factors that makes severe complications including death from COVID more likely. However what exactly are all the other people who are not as healthy as you are supposed to do.

For one we could adjust our pension system so that older workers in places like meat packing plants don't have to work throughout this crisis. I also think now might be a good time to talk about things like better sick pay so that people with the health conditions you mentioned can live with dignity (many of them have to work in order to make ends meet) and also set up social support networks so they can have things like groceries delivered to them. What I want to do is find solutions that actually empower people. The problem with lockdowns is that they really only protect people who have the luxury to stay at home and stare in front of a Zoom computer all day, while everyone without that capability or the "essential workers" we have been paying lip service to are thrown under the bus. I also find it ironic that the "lockdown-above-all-else-crowd" claims to have empathy for those negatively impacted by the lockdown, but all I've heard so far comes across as dismissive and smacks to me as lip service and self-rigtheousness rather than actual empathy and compassion for the less fortunate.

Aristotleded24

Let us pray:

Quote:
With banners reading “Let us Pray” and “We Want Mass,” Catholic protesters held scattered demonstrations around France on Sunday to demand that authorities relax virus lockdown measures to allow religious services.

In the western city of Nantes, hundreds gathered in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, some kneeling on the rain-soaked pavement, according to local broadcaster France Bleu. Similar gatherings were reported or planned in the eastern city of Strasbourg, Bordeaux in the southwest, and outside the Saint-Louis Cathedral in Versailles.

Devout Catholics sang hymns and protested for hours Friday at the landmark Saint-Sulpice Church on the Left Bank of Paris at a similar demonstration — but Paris police said the protest didn’t respect social distancing and violated an order against praying in the streets, so they banned a similar rally planned for Sunday.

With more confirmed virus cases in than any other European country, predominantly Roman Catholic France banned Mass and other religious services for the month of November as part of nationwide partial lockdown measures aimed at reining in infections and relieving pressure on hospitals. Churches and other religious sites remain open for individual visitors to come and pray.

Aristotleded24
Aristotleded24

Bacchus wrote:
Apparently it is ok to support violence and terrorism here in the name of freedom? Interesting

What's that in response to exactly?

To clarify on the issue with the German protests, it's quite believable that there were unsavoury elements such as QAnaon that attached themselves to protests. It is quite common for fringe elements to attach themselves to all kinds of demonstrations. It is also common that the media focuses on these fringe elements, makes it look like they speak for the whole group, and use that to demonize the protest rather than engage in serious discussion about what is driving it. This happens to us on the left all the time. I think a similar thing happening is happening with lockdown protests. Furthermore, you need to look at the interests behind the media. The Washington Post, which published the article about the German protest, is owned by Jeff Bezos. He is also the CEO of Amazon. He has a vested interest in having everybody purchase things through his company. He would naturally have an interest in promoting views that suggest the current restrictions are necessary while squelching views that suggest it isn't. Manufacturing consent 101.

Aristotleded24

Hungary to ban gay adoption:

Quote:
Hungary's government has proposed legislation that would essentially ban adoption by same-sex couples and that rights groups say is an attack on the LGBTQI community.

The rightwing government late on Tuesday (11 November) presented several bills unrelated to the coronavirus as the country takes unprecedented measures against a worrying rise in Covid-19 infections.

The government's proposal for a constitutional amendment says Hungary "protects children's right to the gender identity they were born with," and provides "education in accordance with the values based on Hungary's constitutional identity and Christian culture."

It also wants to put into the constitution that "the mother is a woman, the father is a man."

That's outrageous! Why aren't people taking to the streets to protest?

Quote:

The Hatter rights group said the legislation practically means a ban on gay adoption, which until now has been possible if one partner applied as a single person. Hungary does not allow gay marriage.

The rights group said in a statement that the timing is no coincidence, as Covid-19 measures prevent any demonstration.

This is what the mathematical models advocating lockdowns don't take into account: human behaviour. Emergency measures give cover for cretins like Orban to abuse their power. You can't create a framework that allows these abuses to take place and then complain about what these leaders do. We know what they are like, a leapord doesn't change its spots. Just for that reason alone, lockdowns need to absolutely be off the table without exception.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here's an interesting article in MediaMatters about the extremely negative reactions of right-wing Americans to official warnings over large family gatherings at Thanksgiving (next Thursday, I think). They seem to be regarding such warnings as a new escalation in their imaginary "war on Christmas". After a discussion of the many recent examples from Fox News, the author writes:

Parker Molloy wrote:

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk has spent months arguing that the pandemic isn’t actually a pandemic, that masks don’t work, and that canceling the college football season would result in “hundreds” of suicides. This week, he claimed that progressives want to restrict Thanksgiving gatherings because of their own supposed disdain for the holiday itself. 

Right-wing plagiarist and new Newsmax host Benny Johnson spent the entirety of the pandemic cheering on people for defying lockdown restrictions and claiming the “real” virus is everything ranging from communism to fatherlessness. Naturally, when faced with the suggestion that people scale back their Thanksgiving plans because the entire country has effectively turned into a COVID-19 hotspot, Johnson lashed out at the government.

Others on the right who’ve made a big show of their plans to defy public health recommendations include Matt Schlapp (who had to self-quarantine after his American Conservative Union held its annual Conservative Political Action Conference in late February), alt-right Twitter personality Mike Cernovich, right-wing TV host Buck Sexton, and Fox Business host Stuart Varney. Others, such as conservative blogger Erick Erickson, Townhall.com writer Julio Rosas, former OANN host Liz Wheeler, and right-wing convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza, couched their rejection of safety requests in claims of Democratic hypocrisy.

NDPP

Lockdown U-Turn in Sweden as COVID-19 Cases Soar and Herd Immunity Hopes Falter

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lockdown-u-turn-in-sweden-as-covid-1...

Aristotleded24

The kids are alright in Italy:

Quote:

Temperatures have dropped in recent days in the northern Italian city of Turin, but that hasn’t prevented Anita Iacovelli from persevering in her protest against the closure of her school.

Every day since 6 November, when schools across the city and the wider Piedmont region were closed due to escalating coronavirus infections, the 12-year-old, wearing a hat, gloves and face mask, has sat outside Italo Calvino school and continued with her lessons remotely on a tablet computer. Behind her is a handwritten poster that reads “Learning at school is our right”.

 

It began as a lone protest but Anita was soon joined by her friend Lisa Rogliatti and other classmates, before the initiative gathered momentum across Italy.

It is not the most ideal way to study, but the children simply want to go back to class, having spent months cooped up indoors in front of computers during the first wave of the pandemic.

...

“The message I want to give is that schools are safe,” Anita said. “We were always in masks, the windows were open and there was hand gel.”

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Here's an interesting article in MediaMatters about the extremely negative reactions of right-wing Americans to official warnings over large family gatherings at Thanksgiving (next Thursday, I think). They seem to be regarding such warnings as a new escalation in their imaginary "war on Christmas". After a discussion of the many recent examples from Fox News, the author writes:

Parker Molloy wrote:

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk has spent months arguing that the pandemic isn’t actually a pandemic, that masks don’t work, and that canceling the college football season would result in “hundreds” of suicides. This week, he claimed that progressives want to restrict Thanksgiving gatherings because of their own supposed disdain for the holiday itself. 

Right-wing plagiarist and new Newsmax host Benny Johnson spent the entirety of the pandemic cheering on people for defying lockdown restrictions and claiming the “real” virus is everything ranging from communism to fatherlessness. Naturally, when faced with the suggestion that people scale back their Thanksgiving plans because the entire country has effectively turned into a COVID-19 hotspot, Johnson lashed out at the government.

Others on the right who’ve made a big show of their plans to defy public health recommendations include Matt Schlapp (who had to self-quarantine after his American Conservative Union held its annual Conservative Political Action Conference in late February), alt-right Twitter personality Mike Cernovich, right-wing TV host Buck Sexton, and Fox Business host Stuart Varney. Others, such as conservative blogger Erick Erickson, Townhall.com writer Julio Rosas, former OANN host Liz Wheeler, and right-wing convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza, couched their rejection of safety requests in claims of Democratic hypocrisy.

I can see why the right is able to paint the left as wanting to destroy the family unit with articles like that. How families gather and how many people one has in one's residence is a very personal decision that the state has absolutely no business interfereing in. Family gatherings are one reason people want to stay alive. Even absent a pandemic, this will be the last Thanksgiving for many elderly (and non-elderly) people they will ever see. How is it humane to deprive them of human contact in this situaton? There is enough information out there on the risks and precautions, it is up to individual families to decide among themselves how to proceed.

Besides, in my view anyone who advocates for such blanket restrictions as not singing in chruch or telling me that it's not okay to have family members over at my place for holiday celebrations (family members I will add are close to the age where they would be considered vulnerable) while applauding BLM protesters who took to the street in much larger crowds last summer is a hypocrite who should not be taken seriously. A virus likes to spread and will do so wherever people are gathered, regardless of whether you agree with the reason or not. So simple question: is this virus lethal enough that stopping all gatherings is necessary to stop the spread or isn't it? You can't insist on other people giving up what is important to them and following certain rules only to say those rules don't apply when it comes to something you support.

Pondering

So simple question: is this virus lethal enough that stopping all gatherings is necessary to stop the spread or isn't it? You can't insist on other people giving up what is important to them and following certain rules only to say those rules don't apply when it comes to something you support.

Correct. There should be no exceptions. If the hospitals project they will have to start cancelling surgeries and ordering refrigerator trucks to use as morgues we should go in to strict lockdowns with curfews. 

If anyone doesn't want to comply they should sign a statement stating they renounce any claim to healthcare. If they become infected they should be jailed in isolation or with other diseased inmates until they are dead or no longer contagious. 

That will leave the heatlh care system able to take care of those of us who are being responsible although I suspect with the above limitations most people would decide to follow health care guidelines. 

Aristotleded24

Thank you for clarifying your belief on that, Pondering. Last summer, I saw 2 pop-up anti-cop demonstrations, one in front of the downtown headquarters of the Winnipeg Police Service, and one in front of the RCMP D Division head quarters. They were large groups, and it did not look to me like they were observing distancing protocols. In this case, I can presume you would fully support that the organizers and attendees of both gatherings be tracked down and subjected to heavy fines for violating health orders?

Aristotleded24

The ridiculousness comes to Winnipeg:

Quote:
A meagre group of Manitobans gathered at the Legislative Building for a rally protesting public health orders – but with more police on scene than protestors, the rally came to a swift and uneventful end.

Only a handful of Manitobans actually showed up for a rally that touted an attendance of more than 300 people. Armed with signs speaking out against recent public health orders, five protestors lined the steps of the Legislature.

"Our economy is going down the toilet," said Patty, a protester at the rally. "I'm here because I believe our country has to open up. We can still practice these measures that have been put in place – the masks, six feet – but the country has to open up."

Patty, along with some of the other protesters with her, was wearing a mask and said they are following the health orders currently in place.

...

The protestors were far outnumbered by Winnipeg Police Service officers who were on the scene. Multiple cruisers surrounded the front of the Legislature, as Manitoba Justice officers blocked the entrance of the grounds.

Glad to know that serious violent crime in Winnipeg has dropped to low enough levels and that every outstanding major crime in the city has been solved so that they had enough police officers to spare for that event.

Here's a thought: a while ago along Portage Avenue, there were Crimestoppers posters taped to posts with pictures of Indigenous women who were missing or murdered asking anyone with information to come forward. Why don't the cops go after that instead?

Pages