The coronavirus response seems somewhat suspicious.

[billvon]

My position is not akin to someone who feels they should be allowed to jeapordize the safety of others, despite your implication.

That is your position.

You believe that people should be allowed to decide for themselves* how and where to congregate during an active pandemic. If they then decide to congregate in a crowded, loud bar without masks or vaccinations, that will absolutely lead to more infections and more deaths - and not just for those people, for other people in their community who did NOT decide to risk their health. Thus, by congregating in that bar, they are jeopardizing the health of others.

(* - and/or for the owners of such bars to make similar decisions.)

To answer your other question, I think that the freedom to keep one's curtains open during WW2 was curtailed for the reasons you mentioned.

As was the freedom to congregate in bars during the height of the pandemic.

 

[David C]

Where the bullets come down depends on where they're shot I guess.

You guess? Tell me something, what manner of person enters a debate and ignores the salient question when given evidence and direct accounts that show their opinion to be insane?

You think people should be allowed to fire bullets into the air for fun?

Since allowing this effectively allows anyone to fire in any number of ways, do you guess that some of them will hit people or property? At this point, you say "it isn't a good idea and people should not be allowed to do this". Are you going to?

 

[Bells]

I just like to see every option.

If I was so gullible, I probably would have believed the general consensus to the exclusion of all other options, which I did not. I don't believe that I am that gullible.

Instead, you choose to use your voice to spread anti-vaxxer BS. That is what makes you gullible. You clearly have not done any research whatsoever. You are merely spouting anti-vaxxer BS on this site without any thought whatsoever. You think you are being clever in stating it as an "estimation" (*sigh*), but believe me, we've seen people try to do this and fail each time.

I make sense. I use the word estimation to mean roughly calculate the extent to which something is true, in most of the cases in which I use it. In this case, that is roughly calculating the extent to which what I hear about coronavirus is true.

Then you are failing at basic mathematics.

I said that the virus might be dangerous and that it also might not be.

Can the bullshit.

Over 5 million people dead in less than two years. If a food contaminant had killed over 5 million people in less than two years (as one example), it would not be allowed to be sold and the person who made the food would be in prison for life for failing to take proper precautions when preparing said food.

I was indeed under the impression that the lock downs were a violation of this bit from the bill of rights act:
Freedom of movement(1)Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.(2)Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.(3)Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.(4)No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.

Firstly, don't assume that everyone is in New Zealand. Secondly, you have completely forgotten that other laws exist in New Zealand, such as the Health Act (1956), and pay particular attention to Part 3 of the Act, which deals with infectious diseases and most importantly, the right of the State to act to protect citizens and residents of the country during an epidemy and pandemic - which COVID19 would qualify.

Although, I suppose that freedom of movement is a very vague thing with plenty of loopholes.

Yes. Prison, private property (eg trespass), secure land and property, government buildings, etc. There are always restrictions in place in where people can go and what they can do.

It's not lovely. But then your sarcasm here is palpable. I can just see the utility of bullying sometimes you know? It's like how criminals have to be punished for there crimes in order to discourage people from doing illegal things. I think that bully's should be bullied for the same reasons. I don't mean physically obviously, because that would probably result in a totalitarian regime pretty quickly. I mean verbally.

And how do you propose to do this? Bully box? Say mean things about the person? You are participating on a forum. Your words will be challenged. Your arguments will definitely be challenged. That is not bullying. You will be expected to support your claims with actual evidence (such as links at a minimum). Trying to suggest it's your "estimation" and then spout whatever bullshit you can think of, does not cut it. This isn't New Zealand.

Come on. Rubbish.

You've been told this repeatedly.

Yes, well, from what I have seen anyone with a strong enough opinion about anything is dangerous for that reason.

Then you clearly have not seen much of life or the world.

I'm not an anti vaxxer. I just think that this whole coronavirus response is very wrong and anything to do with it should be treated with suspicion.

You compared the vaccine to gene therapy and suggested that's why people are afraid of it.

You can disagree with public health orders as much as you like. It's the only reason New Zealand and other countries have managed to keep their death rates down. You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.

I follow the rules if and only if they make sense.

That's not how it works.

And I can safely say that I truly hope you never, ever get a driver's licence at this point in time!

I do not think this. I think that everyone should have the freedom to do anything but hurt others.

Cute.

A deadly virus means that anyone infected with said virus is causing harm to others. Understand now?

I know what it means, and so do you I presume.

I do. You should look it up though. Because you aren't making sense when you employ these terms outside of their actual meaning.

The lock downs. The lock downs undermining the freedom of movement, which according to the bill of rights act, at least everyone in NZ has.

New Zealand also has other legislations that comply with the Bill of Rights, and which allow the Government and the health department in this instance, to employ measures for public safety. In this case, lockdowns, which are legal as they are in accordance to the Health Act (1956) that I mentioned above. And it's not "degraded".

You need to look up the definition of that word and then look up "eroded".

Well, legally speaking, yes. However, I disagree that anyone has the right to impose their will onto anyone else except to prevent that someone else from hurting others, where there is no other way to prevent that someone else from hurting others.

Moot point. The laws exist to prevent harm to the general public. COVID is a deadly virus. Over 5 million people dead and that count is still going up.

This is why I think that people should be allowed guns, just in case they need to defend themselves when their government turns nasty.

Of course you do! Is this so they can shoot them up in the air for fun?

Something to do with what Jacinda is calling the traffic light system.

And what's that?

This is a forum with people from all over the world. Not from New Zealand.

From what I just saw, it's a pretty good system. What's your issue with it?

The word eroded works here. The word degraded works here.
Yes, I do know what totalitarianism is. I'm not an idiot despite your implication that I am. I know what I am talking about.

Laws don't really degrade.

No. People still pretty much have all of their freedoms as far as I am aware. It is just the freedom of movement which I am concerned about, because of the lock downs.

If you make claims, you need to be able to support it.

Well, tough. I'm not defining degraded for you in the context of this sentence because I am pretty sure that you already know what it means and I refuse to participate in any petty tests. I have nothing to prove to anyone.

Then you are simply spouting nonsense and if you can't back up your claims, then that's on you and not anyone else.

When you misuse words, the meaning of your posts change.

Okay. Like most things have killed at least some people, because people are so damn fragile. Really, they should just learn to be more careful, you know?

Or people can not shoot their guns up in the air or fire them for fun in any direction that could kill someone.

You used the quote function. It went wrong, but you'll get the hang of it one day!

How does real life not work that way? Who can people not let onto their own properties, other than criminals?

Anyone they choose. Trespassers, vagrants, Jehovah's Witness, etc..

If you ever rocked up to my house, do you think you should be allowed entry? No, you should not. In the interest of public safety, restaurants are required to have people be vaccinated to use their premises. Given the high percentage of vaccinated people, it makes sense to do so, and it will also keep them safer. If you have an issue with it, I'd suggest you get take out!

Where the bullets come down depends on where they're shot I guess.

Doesn't matter. They can and do kill people. The solution is to not do it. It's why it's illegal in the US in all 50 states.

 

[Sarkus]

My position is not akin to someone who feels they should be allowed to jeapordize the safety of others, despite your implication. How would being allowed to let others onto one's own property jeapordize the safety of others? That is a ridiculous proposition.

You let people into your house... imagine they catch COVID because you had it without knowing. They then let people into their house, and they pass on COVID to them, some of whom get ill, and perhaps die as a result. And because everyone is allowed to let whoever they want into their own property, the virus can spread, putting more people in hospital, straining the resources of hospitals, and thereby putting non-COVID patients at risk as well.
Given this possibility, how is you letting people into your own property not ultimately putting others at risk, and jeopardising their safety?

Anyway, to answer your question, yes I do, unless they had some alternative way to prevent their lights from showing.
To answer your other question, I think that the freedom to keep one's curtains open during WW2 was curtailed for the reasons you mentioned.

And similarly, the reasons your freedom to allow people into your own property is also curtailed (when that freedom is curtailed) is for the same reason of not jeopardising the safety of others.
Why do you see one as being an acceptable curtailment of freedom (so as not to jeopardise the safety of others) but not the other?

 

[Michael 345]

Why do you see one as being an acceptable curtailment of freedom (so as not to jeopardise the safety of others) but not the other?

Being age 17????

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

You let people into your house... imagine they catch COVID because you had it without knowing. They then let people into their house, and they pass on COVID to them, some of whom get ill, and perhaps die as a result. And because everyone is allowed to let whoever they want into their own property, the virus can spread, putting more people in hospital, straining the resources of hospitals, and thereby putting non-COVID patients at risk as well.
Given this possibility, how is you letting people into your own property not ultimately putting others at risk, and jeopardising their safety?
And similarly, the reasons your freedom to allow people into your own property is also curtailed (when that freedom is curtailed) is for the same reason of not jeopardising the safety of others.
Why do you see one as being an acceptable curtailment of freedom (so as not to jeopardise the safety of others) but not the other?

Pretty much everything is dangerous to a certain extent. What is more dangerous, by my estimation, is using these dangers as excuses to erode basic freedom's.
Anyway, if people are so worried about catching coronavirus, maybe they should be more careful about who they come into contact with. A lot of places have already decided to exclude the unvaccinated, and there is a vaccine which worked fairly well for the virus from what I have heard, so I am sure that they will be fine.

the reason that I see the first WW2 concealing one's lights thing as an acceptable curtailment of freedom is that it seems to me that if too many people have their lights visible, in a city, during war time, the others are doomed as a result of this no matter what they do. As in, they will get blown up by the opposition.

The reason I do not see the other situation, as in, not being allowed to let certain people onto one's own property as an acceptable curtailment of freedom is that people can simply decide not to visit other people, or interact with them. There are various precautions which people can decide to take in order to avoid catching coronavirus, like social distancing and the vaccine. I recommend these instead of imprisoning everyone.

If the hospitals are so strained by people's recklessness, then perhaps they should turn the reckless people away.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Instead, you choose to use your voice to spread anti-vaxxer BS. That is what makes you gullible. You clearly have not done any research whatsoever. You are merely spouting anti-vaxxer BS on this site without any thought whatsoever. You think you are being clever in stating it as an "estimation" (*sigh*), but believe me, we've seen people try to do this and fail each time.

I am clever, despite your implication that I am not. This is getting to be a bore. I have done research on how the vaccine works, and apparently it works by delivering mRNA into cells where the mRNA is enclosed in a lipid capsule of some description, thus triggering the cell to produce the spike protein found on the surface of the virus, thus triggering an immune response to that protein and giving the organism the vaccine was administered to an immunity to the virus. What seems suspicious to me about this is that I have heard that mRNA vaccine's are completely new, and also they seem to work remarkably similarly to gene therapy. That was as far as my research took me. What have you seen people try and fail to do each time?

Then you are failing at basic mathematics.

I'm not really.

Can the bullshit.

What bs?

Over 5 million people dead in less than two years. If a food contaminant had killed over 5 million people in less than two years (as one example), it would not be allowed to be sold and the person who made the food would be in prison for life for failing to take proper precautions when preparing said food.

Okay. Good. Although, I honestly think that punishments should be less severe for mistakes, because the purpose of legal punishment is to reform, and it doesn't work so well for mistakes.

Firstly, don't assume that everyone is in New Zealand. Secondly, you have completely forgotten that other laws exist in New Zealand, such as the Health Act (1956), and pay particular attention to Part 3 of the Act, which deals with infectious diseases and most importantly, the right of the State to act to protect citizens and residents of the country during an epidemy and pandemic - which COVID19 would qualify.

I do not assume that everyone is in NZ. That is just, like, some random little thought you had and then articulated in order to be snarky. I have not forgotten that there are other laws in NZ. As per your implication, I am well aware that some laws may contradict each other.
I can't read all of that. What is the part of the act you were hoping to use against me?

Yes. Prison, private property (eg trespass), secure land and property, government buildings, etc. There are always restrictions in place in where people can go and what they can do.

True. These restrictions are probably good things in many cases. However, I would say that the only restrictions that are really necessary are the following: No violence except in necessary self defense. No stealing. No sexual assault. No harassment. No vandalism. No imprisonment except as punishment for a harmful crime.

And how do you propose to do this? Bully box? Say mean things about the person? You are participating on a forum. Your words will be challenged. Your arguments will definitely be challenged. That is not bullying. You will be expected to support your claims with actual evidence (such as links at a minimum). Trying to suggest it's your "estimation" and then spout whatever bullshit you can think of, does not cut it. This isn't New Zealand.

I'm not saying that having one's word challenged is bullying, despite your implication that I was. I support my claims with evidence whenever I have any, so there you go. Anyway, the way I propose that people bully bullies is by simply saying mean things to them which strike personal nerves.

You've been told this repeatedly.

I have been told this repeatedly. Perhaps you should stop saying the same thing over and over again in different ways.

Then you clearly have not seen much of life or the world.

I haven't seen much of life or the world, because I am 17. I will see more.

You compared the vaccine to gene therapy and suggested that's why people are afraid of it.

I did. I still guess this.

You can disagree with public health orders as much as you like. It's the only reason New Zealand and other countries have managed to keep their death rates down. You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.

Of course locking the world up might help to stop people dying of a virus. I still reckon that it is not worth it though. Also, if things keep going the way they're going, I might not be allowed to disagree with the officials. Perhaps the world will become like oceania.

That's not how it works.

And I can safely say that I truly hope you never, ever get a driver's licence at this point in time!

I'm sure I will be a fairly safe driver, despite your implication that I would be the contrary.
Also, I am very good at getting my way. I'm sure others are too.

Cute.

A deadly virus means that anyone infected with said virus is causing harm to others. Understand now?

That is wrong. Although, I really recommend that people avoid being infected with it.

I do. You should look it up though. Because you aren't making sense when you employ these terms outside of their actual meaning.

I know what I am talking about. I have no reason to look it up. Besides, I already did look it up. It is true that anyone who employs any term outside of it's actually meaning does not make sense.

New Zealand also has other legislations that comply with the Bill of Rights, and which allow the Government and the health department in this instance, to employ measures for public safety. In this case, lockdowns, which are legal as they are in accordance to the Health Act (1956) that I mentioned above. And it's not "degraded".

lock downs are contrary to the freedom of movement. Perhaps they are legal. But they shouldn't be. This is why I plan to get into politics.

You need to look up the definition of that word and then look up "eroded".

I know enough English. I do not need to look up any words.
I was thinking that I might try learning Chinese next.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

You guess? Tell me something, what manner of person enters a debate and ignores the salient question when given evidence and direct accounts that show their opinion to be insane?

You think people should be allowed to fire bullets into the air for fun?

Since allowing this effectively allows anyone to fire in any number of ways, do you guess that some of them will hit people or property? At this point, you say "it isn't a good idea and people should not be allowed to do this". Are you going to?

I am not ignoring the salient question. I have already said that the virus is probably dangerous and suggested that people take their own precautions to avoid catching it, but that we all do away with lock downs because they erode too much personal freedom, and are therefore bad. Were you implying that I was ignoring all of this?
Also, as for the sort of people who would do what you mention in your first paragraph, I'd say that probably only online troll's would.
I do think that people should be allowed to fire bullets in the air for fun. The permission to do so would not necessarily allow anyone to fire in any number of ways. Like for instance, they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people, because that type of violence is illegal, and they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people's property, because vandalism is illegal. Some might accidentally shoot other people or other people's things, unless the right kind of restrictions were put in place, like, for instance, firing guns in public places.
I might change my views on this if I am given good reason to do so. I do not know yet.

 

[Michael 345]

If the hospitals are so strained by people's recklessness, then perhaps they should turn the reckless people away.

So more criminals than jails can hold, solution, build more jails??? Don't even think about diverting low level criminals to other programs away from jail

So more reckless people than hospitals can hold, solution, build more hospitals??? Don't even think about educating reckless people not to be reckless

Get vaccinated

 

[David C]

I am not ignoring the salient question.

Yes you were, I bolded it.

I have already said that the virus is probably dangerous and suggested that people take their own precautions to avoid catching it, but that we all do away with lock downs because they erode too much personal freedom, and are therefore bad. Were you implying that I was ignoring all of this?

Did the bolded question confuse you? This is like pulling teeth - I was asking you about firing bullets into the air.

I do think that people should be allowed to fire bullets in the air for fun.

That is off the scale stupid. You were given a link and accounts showing people getting injured from falling bullets at a couple of hundred mph!

The permission to do so would not necessarily allow anyone to fire in any number of ways. Like for instance, they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people, because that type of violence is illegal, and they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people's property, because vandalism is illegal. Some might accidentally shoot other people or other people's things, unless the right kind of restrictions were put in place, like, for instance, firing guns in public places.

That is just so very dumb. How the hell would you police this? You either stop it completely because it is very dangerous or people do the very dangerous thing!

I might change my views on this if I am given good reason to do so. I do not know yet.

Really? I mean really! I gave you a link explaining it, people gave accounts of experiencing it. It's not complicated - what goes up must come down. Can people chuck marbles up in the air, or drop them from the tops of buildings? Bullets come down from being fired, at very fast speeds. They are made of metal. Which part of this confuses you? One of those comes down in a a city or town, on somebody's car, big dent, or on their head, big cut or worse!

 

[Michael 345]

or on their head, big cut or worse

Perhaps one already has and landed on someone's head. The trauma was internal causing her to loose any memory of the incident and giving us the person we have now???

 

[Bells]

I am clever, despite your implication that I am not.

Mm hmm.. You even figured out how to use the quote function! Gold star!

This is getting to be a bore.

Indeed..

I have done research on how the vaccine works, and apparently it works by delivering mRNA into cells where the mRNA is enclosed in a lipid capsule of some description, thus triggering the cell to produce the spike protein found on the surface of the virus, thus triggering an immune response to that protein and giving the organism the vaccine was administered to an immunity to the virus.

Do you know how vaccines work? Instead of using bits of a disease to trigger the response, mRNA's instead. That's it.

What seems suspicious to me about this is that I have heard that mRNA vaccine's are completely new, and also they seem to work remarkably similarly to gene therapy.

How do you think it's gene therapy?

It's not altering your DNA. So how, pray tell, do you think it's like gene therapy?

That was as far as my research took me.

It's a shame your research did not extend to "what is gene therapy".

What have you seen people try and fail to do each time?

What you are doing now. You won't get far. You may think that you can get your way, but you won't. There is only so much that we'll tolerate trying to educate or help you.

What bs?

The maybe it is, maybe it isn't BS. You're not being smart or intelligent. Your posts border on the ridiculous. As I said, over five and a half million people dead in less than 2 years that we know of. It is more likely more than that. And we get people like you trying to pull the ridiculous maybe it's dangerous, maybe it isn't rubbish. That's the bullshit I am calling BS.

Okay. Good.

"Okay. Good."?
I say over five and a half million people have died and that's what you come back with and then follow it up with this?

Although, I honestly think that punishments should be less severe for mistakes, because the purpose of legal punishment is to reform, and it doesn't work so well for mistakes.

What are you talking about?

I do not assume that everyone is in NZ. That is just, like, some random little thought you had and then articulated in order to be snarky. I have not forgotten that there are other laws in NZ. As per your implication, I am well aware that some laws may contradict each other.

The law does not "contradict each other".

The laws gives the health department the right to act accordingly, and they have.

I can't read all of that. What is the part of the act you were hoping to use against me?

Use against you?

I thought you said you were clever?

If you bothered to read it, you'd see that the law actually gives the chief medical officer, health minister and the government the right to act as they have done in the event of a disease outbreak. That is what Part 3 of the Health Act states. It gives the government the right to impose lockdowns, quarantine, mask mandates, etc, if the country's health officer deems it necessary. So your claims that the lockdown laws are somehow illegal or contravenes your country's Bill of Rights is provably wrong. This has been explained numerous times. Repeating the same false claims over and over again is just trolling at this point.

True. These restrictions are probably good things in many cases. However, I would say that the only restrictions that are really necessary are the following: No violence except in necessary self defense. No stealing. No sexual assault. No harassment. No vandalism. No imprisonment except as punishment for a harmful crime.

Clever girl! Making crimes illegal!

I'm not saying that having one's word challenged is bullying, despite your implication that I was. I support my claims with evidence whenever I have any, so there you go. Anyway, the way I propose that people bully bullies is by simply saying mean things to them which strike personal nerves.

What evidence? You haven't even provided any links to studies or supported any of your claims, nothing whatsoever. You don't even know your country's laws.

I did. I still guess this.

Then you guessed wrong. Again.

Of course locking the world up might help to stop people dying of a virus. I still reckon that it is not worth it though.

You don't think preventing people from dying is worth it?

Do you not care that millions of people died? Do you not care that that figure could have reached twice that if restrictions were not in place and the world hadn't locked down?

Also, if things keep going the way they're going, I might not be allowed to disagree with the officials. Perhaps the world will become like oceania.

Good lord! Perhaps you should stop doing your research on Info Wars!

I'm sure I will be a fairly safe driver, despite your implication that I would be the contrary.

Driving takes a level of maturity:

Also, I am very good at getting my way. I'm sure others are too.

That you do not possess.

That is wrong.

You don't think it's dangerous to spread a virus to others?

Although, I really recommend that people avoid being infected with it.

Ya. If only there was a vaccine that helped reduce the risk of catching or transmitting it......

I know what I am talking about.

Really? You think the vaccine is gene therapy. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no reason to look it up. Besides, I already did look it up.

It's like picking the petals off a daisy..

It is true that anyone who employs any term outside of it's actually meaning does not make sense.

Colour me shocked!

lock downs are contrary to the freedom of movement.

Lockdowns kept people alive.

Perhaps they are legal.

There is no perhaps. They were legal.

But they shouldn't be.

A matter of perspective. For example, selfish sociopaths who don't care that millions died and it had the potential to kill millions more believe that lockdowns should not be legal. People who have compassion and empathy believe lockdowns were necessary to keep people alive. Thankfully the sociopaths didn't win.

This is why I plan to get into politics.

That is all the world needs.

Be warned though, if you go into politics, you'll be required to read and know legislations..

I know enough English. I do not need to look up any words.

Mmm hmm.. It shows!

Just one final point..

If the hospitals are so strained by people's recklessness, then perhaps they should turn the reckless people away.

I do think that people should be allowed to fire bullets in the air for fun. The permission to do so would not necessarily allow anyone to fire in any number of ways. Like for instance, they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people, because that type of violence is illegal, and they still wouldn't be allowed to shoot other people's property, because vandalism is illegal. Some might accidentally shoot other people or other people's things, unless the right kind of restrictions were put in place, like, for instance, firing guns in public places.

However, I would say that the only restrictions that are really necessary are the following: No violence except in necessary self defense. No stealing. No sexual assault. No harassment. No vandalism. No imprisonment except as punishment for a harmful crime.

You should have these 3 points be a part of your political slogan!

 

[Quantum Quack]

I might change my views on this if I am given good reason to do so. I do not know yet.

I think that if you are seriously concerned, and I believe you are, I would suggest that you put on a good quality mask ( N95 or better) and spend a few hours in a large regional hospitals Casualty (ED) Department. Observe how exhausted the medical teams are and how very sick COVID patients are, as they slowly get processed and returned home (life threatened excepted) because beds are not available. Take the time to get real first hand experience of what is actually happening in our emergency wards and then realize that nearly all hospitals are inundated and barely functioning due to the over whelming nature of this pandemic.

I recently had the misfortune of needing urgent treatment via ambulance to ED for an unrelated condition and endured about 8 hours of hell before I too was sent home because the hospital was not deemed safe enough for me to be admitted. I got first hand experience of what mis-information, ignorance and fear of vaccines is costing our front line health workers and it is not good !!!

So make the effort to do the research before forming a strong opinion either way and if you are as smart as you appear to be you will find that the world is in deep shite with this bug generally speaking and the main reason for temporarily losing individual freedoms is because of the bug forcing people (Governments included) to take urgent action to slow or stop it's spread. ( including the use of emergency vaccines )
...and note that no government would voluntarily force an economy or population into lock down or declare mandates with out damn good reasons as the cost both politically and financial is extremely high.

 

[Michael 345]

No violence except in necessary self defense. No stealing. No sexual assault. No harassment. No vandalism. No imprisonment except as punishment for a harmful crime.

How about censorship? In NZ

As of September 2011, 1319 books have been banned and an additional 728 have been restricted in some way. More than two-thirds of banned or restricted books were classified before 1987.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Zealand

 

[billvon]

I am not ignoring the salient question. I have already said that the virus is probably dangerous and suggested that people take their own precautions to avoid catching it, but that we all do away with lock downs because they erode too much personal freedom, and are therefore bad.

How about quarantines for thinks like hemorrhagic fever and tuberculosis? Also too much erosion?

I do think that people should be allowed to fire bullets in the air for fun

But then you say that someone might get hurt (and thus make this not OK) "unless the right kind of restrictions were put in place, like, for instance, firing guns in public places."
So you think it's OK to fire bullets in the air, but not in any public places?

Do you think it's OK if you fire your guns into the air just slightly over a crowded open air concert - but from your back deck?

 

[Sarkus]

Anyway, if people are so worried about catching coronavirus, maybe they should be more careful about who they come into contact with. A lot of places have already decided to exclude the unvaccinated, and there is a vaccine which worked fairly well for the virus from what I have heard, so I am sure that they will be fine.

Having the vaccine is no guarantee of not catching the virus. I have had my 2 shots but recently came down with it from only visiting the supermarket.

the reason that I see the first WW2 concealing one's lights thing as an acceptable curtailment of freedom is that it seems to me that if too many people have their lights visible, in a city, during war time, the others are doomed as a result of this no matter what they do. As in, they will get blown up by the opposition.

By allowing people into your home and spreading the virus to them increases the chances of others catching it. You genuinely are increasing the risk of others suffering as a result. Sure, they could stay at home and give up their freedom of not going out just so that you can have your freedom of having whoever you want in your own home. I mean, why should everyone have the same rights, right?

The reason I do not see the other situation, as in, not being allowed to let certain people onto one's own property as an acceptable curtailment of freedom is that people can simply decide not to visit other people, or interact with them. There are various precautions which people can decide to take in order to avoid catching coronavirus, like social distancing and the vaccine. I recommend these instead of imprisoning everyone.

Sure, and people could have left the city in WW2. So no problem, right? Everyone who stays can open their curtains as much as they like at night, right? Everyone who doesn't want to risk things can simply leave, right?
By allowing the spread with those you invite to your own house, and they spread to their friends, and they to theirs, etc, you are, whether you want to accept it or not, increasing the risk to the general public when you venture outside and are in proximity to them. E.g. at the shops.
Oh, but they can lock themselves away, right? They can curtail their freedoms even more just to satisfy your selfishness?

If the hospitals are so strained by people's recklessness, then perhaps they should turn the reckless people away.

You don't really understand doctors, do you. Noone gets turned away. Hippocratic oath 'n' all.
That said, the hospitals aren't strained only by people's recklessness, but by people's selfishness at not following the rules, and infecting those who generally do follow the rules.
Simply put, curtailing freedoms is for the greater good. If you don't understand why it is, maybe investigate the thinking behind it before complaining and disagreeing with it.
If, after you do understand, you still want to keep your metaphorical curtains open at night, that's ultimately your call, but such selfishness affects more than just you and those you invite inside.

 

[billvon]

You don't really understand doctors, do you. Noone gets turned away. Hippocratic oath 'n' all.

Well, the oath is more about "do no harm" rather than "take everyone who comes." But in the US we do have a law - EMTALA - that states that people cannot be turned away from emergency rooms.

 

[Michael 345]

Sure, and people could have left the city in WW2.

I was evacuated, as a baby, to Croydon Surrey which then countryside, to be looked after by a aunt

Now Croydon part of Greater London

 

[Sarkus]

Well, the oath is more about "do no harm" rather than "take everyone who comes." But in the US we do have a law - EMTALA - that states that people cannot be turned away from emergency rooms.

It is, but most doctors I know would say that not helping someone who is in need is to do them harm. But I concede that this may not strictly be what was intended by the oath.

 

[Sarkus]

I was evacuated, as a baby, to Croydon...

I feel your pain.