Or perhaps they want to live their lives and do not have/visit fat/ill grandparents.
-
The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!
Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.
Coronavirus Rant
- Thread starter sine24
- Start date
D
Deleted member 473
Hey, why have laws for driving? Let the youngsters live their (short) lives!
Why have food safety standards, let them do as they choose.
Let's rid ourselves of all the old people, say over 25s, and let the young live and grow fat on their junk food, and why burden them with a NHS?
Let me see: are you comparing laws for driving with the laws to lock healthy people in their houses? Something no ruler ever forever and never did in this country.
D
Deleted member 473
The whole point is, how do you know you will remain healthy and not infect anyone else?
Richard III locked some healthy people up. Not for a Good reason, either.
Richard III locked some healthy people up. Not for a Good reason, either.
D
Deleted member 473
In my youth, there was a very fat kid in my class. He would rate as normal today.
What law was that?
I am afraid that means nothing. In doctors' eyes as well as in thinking people's eyes he is still fat. This virus is NOT PC.
D
Deleted member 473
The monarch was the law. But that is irrelevant.
His claim on the throne was questionable anyway.
D
Deleted member 473
You are nit picking. The real question is, should laws be used to protect the population from the acts of individuals, purposeful or thoughtless, and the answer is yes.
House arrest, internment, regal fiat, prevention of terrorist act, all involve removing an individual's freedom.
Notifiable diseases are another example.
House arrest, internment, regal fiat, prevention of terrorist act, all involve removing an individual's freedom.
Notifiable diseases are another example.
Wow, nit picking. You curtail liberty rights which have been earned bit by bit through 8 centuries and that is nit-picking for you?
Why did they not imprison their healthy population during the spanish flu which was probably 1000 times worse?
I'll tell you why: because medical first principles, learnt through millennia - isolate ill people
Why did they not imprison their healthy population during the spanish flu which was probably 1000 times worse?
I'll tell you why: because medical first principles, learnt through millennia - isolate ill people
MikeSh
Well-Known Member
Blackouts/curfews during WW2, and maybe other times?
True. But that doesn't say or mean isolate only ill people. It's normal to also isolate people who have the potential to become ill or carry a disease.
1. Even though it was not mentioned it was obvious that we were talking about medical purposes. Even if it were not obvious shirley you would realise that not even in WW2 people were locked in their houses as in these lockdowns. Hell, we may have had record industrial production
2. In what medical book/practice is that normal? Leave aside the book co authored by you and/or Boris
D
Deleted member 473
The difference here being that we know some people are ill, because they show symptoms, and they are isolated. The vast majority, we don't know if they are infectious or not, and they are spreading the disease.
What is the problem for you? Have you lost your job because of this?
What is the problem for you? Have you lost your job because of this?
D
Deleted member 473
I was not aware that anyone was being locked in.
Noted. There is no answer to my second question
Pretty damn locked in if you are not allowed out of your house for 23 out of 24hrs. Word prison is quite apt.
Also noted: you made no attempt to defend Mike's WW2 simile. I know, it can't be defended.
