Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Save Santa - Sod Lives!
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
robbiex wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Well put Honey.
People instinctively know that the actual risk to themselves from this is negligible. It is the same phenomena that saw Gov officials ignore their own rules in the spring.
The disjoin between media presentation, controls and individual perceived threat, is I predict where the jungle drums of civil unrest and rioting will begin to beat....
The Gov can not expect continued adherence from the millions of young, when they have taken a clear decision to break the social contract with them and discard their futures in favour of protecting a minority at the end of their lives.
"Continued adherance", What adherance? their has been very little adherance from the young in my experience.
I agree there is little or no adherence on the streets by the very young to the control measures. I meant adherence to civil criminal obedience in the broadest sense; i.e not rioting and looting for one.
The decision has been made to lockdown once again and in the absence of a vaccine just kick the can further down the road.
This will destroy thousands more businesses and lives on the back of feeble evidence that such measures even work, let alone are proportionate to the harm they cause. |
|
robbiex |
Wyot wrote:
Well put Honey.
People instinctively know that the actual risk to themselves from this is negligible. It is the same phenomena that saw Gov officials ignore their own rules in the spring.
The disjoin between media presentation, controls and individual perceived threat, is I predict where the jungle drums of civil unrest and rioting will begin to beat....
The Gov can not expect continued adherence from the millions of young, when they have taken a clear decision to break the social contract with them and discard their futures in favour of protecting a minority at the end of their lives.
"Continued adherance", What adherance? their has been very little adherance from the young in my experience. Queuing up outside pubs close together, having house parties, hob-nobbing in the streets. When the inevitable second lockdown happens they will move their interactions into each other's houses. The first lockdown reduced the cases because their was an element of fear, which has now gone. Their should be severe penalties for breaches. £1000s of pounds for going into others houses without good reason. People from dementia have been unable to see relatives and stopped eating because they feel abandoned, all because of the selfishness of mainly young people. Even within the rule of 6, you still have to social distance, which people aren't doing, and this is why the disease is spreading. I haven't seen family or friends since March. I only need to walk 15 minutes out of my house to see several breaches of rules. No masks, mixing with other households. If people adhered to these rules, cases would come down, and no matter what you think, if cases don't come down then things won't open up again. |
|
Wyot |
Well put Honey.
People instinctively know that the actual risk to themselves from this is negligible. It is the same phenomena that saw Gov officials ignore their own rules in the spring.
The disjoin between media presentation, controls and individual perceived threat, is I predict where the jungle drums of civil unrest and rioting will begin to beat....
The Gov can not expect continued adherence from the millions of young, when they have taken a clear decision to break the social contract with them and discard their futures in favour of protecting a minority at the end of their lives. |
|
Honey |
If everyone is so sure that all the rules are needed, why are they so willing to ignore the advice/law at Christmas so that they can enjoy it as usual?
And if they really do think it doesn't make any difference if they have lots of people round, why not do it all the time?  |
|
|
|
