Lockdown Policy, can it be viewed as an infringement on our Human rights?

[BADecker]

franky1 is not a person.
its an identity.

your parents and a doctor witnessed yourbirth and parents gave you a name. thats something you need to argue and call your parents a liar if you want to pretend your birthname is not you

goodluck with that
yes i can easily argue franky1 is not my birthname. but truly goodluck dis-proving something your family know and are witness to.

you must be truly hated at family parties

person has nothing to do with just a legal identity thats a separate vessel from a human.
a person is the human whether male female. the identity is something else

you can play the identity game separately. but that will involve you relinquishing your right to any bank account in that name if you suddenly want to deny you are called by a certain name
you then have to relinquish your birth certificate and so you will be deemed an illegal alien and put into a detention camp

good luck with that

That's pretty smart of you. Since it's your person, you have the right to identify what it is, lol.

Besides, it's the banks identity that made an agreement with your identity in the first place. Just make sure your identity maintains the terms of the agreement.

[franky1]

you have no clue. but you can deny your own existence in court, heck your going to have to deny your parents are your parents too. so good luck with that. and have fun in an ICE detention camp

[BADecker]

you have no clue. but you can deny your own existence in court, heck your going to have to deny your parents are your parents too. so good luck with that. and have fun in an ICE detention camp

As usual, you're missing it. But what else could be expected?

By denying that an artificial entity is me, I am setting forth my own existence as it really is... stronger than ever.

We read in the news now and again, that the police arrested the wrong guy because of mistaken identity. All I am doing is showing you that court documents are not you. The entity on them is not you... unless you accept it.

I don't mind at all that you accept that some other entity is you. Go right ahead. Give yourself hundreds of you and your parents and siblings, and spouses, with hundreds of different children that nobody can find anywhere except on documents.

[Gyfts]

ut, lockdowns were
not as expensive as paying 320million people 'stimulus payments'
yep not many 'americans' were out of country as of february..
so paying a few hundred k is cheaper then hundreds of millions.

yes last april news "nearly 85k americans needed to get home"
they coulda easily pay them to stay where they were or put in a proper 3 week quarantine before being allowed within country

but hey if you think its easy to get in a country with border closures.. then the billions spent on 'the wall' went to waste

In hindsight it would have been better if it works but there’s no way we could go back and see if paying out 30k euros would be a better economic strategy. And tbh I would gladly leave my country and stay out if they were paying me 30k euro...

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

[franky1]

In hindsight it would have been better if it works but there’s no way we could go back and see if paying out 30k euros would be a better economic strategy. And tbh I would gladly leave my country and stay out if they were paying me 30k euro...

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

seems weird to see my words said back to me.. about hindesight. but then ignoring the learnings part of hindesight...  when i clearly said in hindesight too.
thing is we already know which strategy worked best because so many countries tried so many different ones
but hey if you want to just treat last year as a blame exercise instead. and then ignore and forget it and not treat it as a learning exercise for the next wave of new strain corona of the future or new strain of any spreadable pathogen of +1% deathrates.. well so be it.

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020 (the australia/sweden method) keep it out of the country in the first place. and have "freedoms" within the borders
even now. with the UK media saying there are 'quarantine hotels' for UK airport arrivals. this is not for all flights or all passengers. so its not really the same as the sweden/australia model

he went too soft on the borders which then meant he had to go tough within the country.
in hindesight we hope governments learn from this. dont do repatriation flights. just give those abroad £30k to stay abroad and extend their vacation/business trip.. and keep the virus out

anyway.. back to the point a page ago.
if we ever experience another pandemic again. keep it out the borders and pay those people that are our citizens but abroad to sty abroad and extend their vacation/business trip and get paid for it.. much cheaper then paying the entire population within the country.

[Gyfts]

In hindsight it would have been better if it works but there’s no way we could go back and see if paying out 30k euros would be a better economic strategy. And tbh I would gladly leave my country and stay out if they were paying me 30k euro...

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

seems weird to see my words said back to me.. about hindesight. but then ignoring the learnings part of hindesight...  when i clearly said in hindesight too.
thing is we already know which strategy worked best because so many countries tried so many different ones
but hey if you want to just treat last year as a blame exercise instead. and then ignore and forget it and not treat it as a learning exercise for the next wave of new strain corona of the future or new strain of any spreadable pathogen of +1% deathrates.. well so be it.

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020 (the australia/sweden method) keep it out of the country in the first place. and have "freedoms" within the borders
even now. with the UK media saying there are 'quarantine hotels' for UK airport arrivals. this is not for all flights or all passengers. so its not really the same as the sweden/australia model

he went too soft on the borders which then meant he had to go tough within the country.
in hindesight we hope governments learn from this. dont do repatriation flights. just give those abroad £30k to stay abroad and extend their vacation/business trip.. and keep the virus out

anyway.. back to the point a page ago.
if we ever experience another pandemic again. keep it out the borders and pay those people that are our citizens but abroad to sty abroad and extend their vacation/business trip and get paid for it.. much cheaper then paying the entire population within the country.

Where did you mention hindsight? The whole COVID situation is woulda coulda shoulda so yeah anyone can look back and think of ways to do things differently. I'm just saying lockdowns aren't the real solution to any of this and they never were.

[Cnut237]

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

It's not hindsight, it was — or should have been — absolutely obvious everyone early last year what would happen, as soon as it started spreading beyond China. Here in the UK, we saw the pandemic wreaking havoc in Italy, and our government did nothing. They weren't willing to accept any degree of economic damage that might ensue from border controls* or that might prove unpopular and hurt them in the opinion polls. Instead they closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. Unfortunately wishful thinking doesn't work against reality.

*see also, as a neat counterpoint, Brexit.

[Tash]

Covid 19 is nothing more than a chilling replay of Adolf policy. The "enemy" is at the doorsteps everone must fight. The enemy this time round is so small nobody has seen it, but dont matter its there the media will tell you so. Any opposition is shut down and laws put in place with severe punishment for what normal would be basic human rights. The elderly and stupid first once to deal with, first with ventilators (almost 90% success rate) than vaccine.
Yellow star is replaced with the modern version of a " green pass" to quickly seperate.
Nothing learned in 80 years.

Concentration camp survivor Vera Sharav  Session 44 The Roots of Evil  https://youtu.be/r02j7HaKYe8
(Mainly in English, closed caption autotranslates)

[CryptocurencyKing]

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020

I agree to the fact that, shouting down the borders would have helped to a large extent but, that depends on how effective the officials at the border carries out their duty. You can imagine that, despite the fee fined on both airports and travellers from London during the second phase of the covid pandemic, some persons still managed to take international flights...!
So, locking down the borders would have provided a minimal solution and in turn, increase corrupt practices at the borders especially in underdeveloped countries.

On the infringement of human rights, being bonded in a nations territory is already an infringement of human rights because,  your rights is defined by your nation. Why do you think you can't just walk across the border to a different nation, isn't it your right?
We've always lived in a world with limited freedom and it would take a lot more than the lock down for people to come to terms with this reality.

[Gyfts]

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

It's not hindsight, it was — or should have been — absolutely obvious everyone early last year what would happen, as soon as it started spreading beyond China. Here in the UK, we saw the pandemic wreaking havoc in Italy, and our government did nothing. They weren't willing to accept any degree of economic damage that might ensue from border controls* or that might prove unpopular and hurt them in the opinion polls. Instead they closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. Unfortunately wishful thinking doesn't work against reality.

*see also, as a neat counterpoint, Brexit.

I just think Johnson did a poor job at communicating throughout all of COVID really. He's extremely smart so him downplaying COVID at the beginning of the pandemic was a bit dumb, but truly -- can you blame any politician for downplaying a virus when the infection mechanics weren't widely known?

[Cnut237]

Johnson [...] He's extremely smart

Hmm. The evidence of his entire adult life suggests otherwise. I see him as more of a Trump-lite*.

can you blame any politician for downplaying a virus when the infection mechanics weren't widely known?

If it's unclear what is happening, then given that people's lives are potentially at stake, it would be sensible for a government to be over-cautious rather than take a gamble.
But in this instance I think it was fairly clear what would happen given the situation in China and, later, as the virus made its way across Europe, Italy. It would be a welcome change if one day governments started to listen to the scientists instead of some lives vs $$$ cost-benefit analysis.

Having said that, I do appreciate that the argument that the UK could just have shut up shop like New Zealand did is overly simplistic, given that New Zealand has a much smaller population and is not a global transport hub.


* but with a Twitter account.

[BADecker]

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020

I agree to the fact that, shouting down the borders would have helped to a large extent but, that depends on how effective the officials at the border carries out their duty. You can imagine that, despite the fee fined on both airports and travellers from London during the second phase of the covid pandemic, some persons still managed to take international flights...!
So, locking down the borders would have provided a minimal solution and in turn, increase corrupt practices at the borders especially in underdeveloped countries.

On the infringement of human rights, being bonded in a nations territory is already an infringement of human rights because,  your rights is defined by your nation. Why do you think you can't just walk across the border to a different nation, isn't it your right?
We've always lived in a world with limited freedom and it would take a lot more than the lock down for people to come to terms with this reality.

By the looks of how infected the United States is, shutting down the borders would have saved a whole bunch of foreigners. You did mean "shutting" and not "shouting," didn't you?

[devil2man]

therefore a) I consider the lockdown imposed on the population as something against human rights, against individual freedom of movement and circulation
b) obviously considering the point a not legal even giving sanctions to those who violate the lockdown seems to me an unfair thing
in my opinion they are limits to democracy

[GeorgeJohn]

All these lockdown these policy is a safety of human life, actually many people mindset is that government introduced lockdown to suppressed their people, I can stand to defend any country that are into the system of lockdown,because on my own nothing like frustration or punishment to people across the country that experienced lockdown, now many people refused to be contaminated of corona virus disease due to some months staying at home, now restricting people for movement is for the interest of the people irrespective what causes the fact or point of restrictions because a government can't push in people into fire, they can only make adequate provision for the people in her country.

[BADecker]

Your opinions are very much needed as always;

(a) Would you consider the government's Lockdown policy and strong restrictions on people’s movements an infringement on human rights?

(b) Do you think that the punishment metted out to those who have grown tired of the lockdown and defaulted in some way is fair, especially when the lockdown rules and policies as well as the punishment for defaulters were not properly discussed in parliament?

a) Nope. On the contrary, I think most of the governments are too liberal on this. Only the New Zealand Government had acted decisively and their measures had brought home the bacon.

b) Nope. They are not fair because the punishment has to be tough sentencing. Right now it's very soft and don't match the threat.


I have a questions about your view on  Human rights. Do they include the right to die?

The thing that lockdown really means is removal of the right to travel. It is removal of right to travel no matter the distance.

In the USA, if there is an emergency, the States each have a period of time that they can set down as martial law, and remove the right to travel. Possibly not all States have such. Some States have 30 days, or 60 or 90.

The kind of emergency that Covid is, has to be apparent. More than 99% of the people don't even get anything beyond mild symptoms... most no symptoms at all. And, it has always been this way. The emergency might have been a good thing for a short period of time, to check out the situation, but no emergency exists, or did exist.

But even if an emergency had existed, lockdowns for more than 90 days are only advisories until the State congress/legislature of each State makes laws. But they better make laws based on fact, or they are liable.

[dongyi17]

I think it can also be infringement if the force is to much, over powering and not being considerate to one's own condition or situation, I believe it should be balance and if the interest is genuine and the motive is pure human right may consider it as good implementation. But we all know not everyone has the same opinion about it and we can't please everyone all in the name of policy.

[LTU_btc]

I think these recent news from Belgium fits to this topic:
https://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-court-slaps-down-covid-19-measures-reports/

A Belgian court has ordered the federal government to end all its coronavirus measures within 30 days because it failed to establish a proper legal basis for them, local media reported on Wednesday.

A. I think that lockdown restrictions breaks human rights more or less. I'm not saying that restrictions isn't needed at all, but there is so many things which doesn't makes sense. And lockdown should be only short term solution. Purpose of lockown - isolate sick people from healthy ones. People can't live in lockdown for more than year. Even with vaccines, we will have to learn to live with virus.
B. Some things is fair, some aren't. But as said above, there is lot of things which doesn't makes sense and there is lot of double standarts. One little example, people who have immunity from Covid or they got vaccine, they still have to live under all these restrictions.
It's nothing surprising to see people breaking rules of lockdown. They already tired to live until all these restrictions and they aren't in fear anymore as they used to be on first wave year ago.

[Quickseller]

Your opinions are very much needed as always;

(a) Would you consider the government's Lockdown policy and strong restrictions on people’s movements an infringement on human rights?

It is an infringement of rights, but so is a lot of things.

Of course the lockdowns are an infringement of people's rights. The purpose of the lockdowns were/are to give more control to government.

The concept of using lockdowns to slow the spread of covid came out of China/the CCP, and their history with human rights should be all that you need to know about the matter.

[Mauser]

Your opinions are very much needed as always;

(a) Would you consider the government's Lockdown policy and strong restrictions on people’s movements an infringement on human rights?

(b) Do you think that the punishment metted out to those who have grown tired of the lockdown and defaulted in some way is fair, especially when the lockdown rules and policies as well as the punishment for defaulters were not properly discussed in parliament?

The problem is in my opinion that all countries are doing it. So saying that the lockdown procedures are wrong in one country would mean they are wrong everywhere. I don't think that any court would tell the government is wrong. First of all it would need to be the highest court instance of the country to declare the measures illegal. But what if the judges are wrong and a lot of people are going to did of it? The judges are probably scared to be liable when deciding against the government.

[Tash]

Belgium lockdowns are illegal a court has ruled
https://youtu.be/PPn6u-xer1g