Every now and then those of us who post content in internet discussion threads are rewarded by a reply from a fully paid up, card carrying member of the left wing idiots union, it does not so much invite us, as demands that we indulge in heavy sarcasm. Such an opportunity was handed to be when I posted a reply to an article from some snivelling neo – fascist (who no doubt thinks of himself as a liberal without having a clue what liberal means,) who was complaining about the right wing nuts who don’t understand how much better off we all are while being kept under indefinite house arrest
COVID-19 Lock-downs: How The Right Got Freedom Wrong
As states across America have extended their stay-at-home orders, a vocal minority of Americans (primarily on the political right) have taken to the streets to declare the lockdowns as ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘tyrannous’. However, while some individual state laws — such as bans on travel outside a state— may be unconstitutional, the lockdowns, in and of themselves, are not. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling ‘Jacobson v. Massachusetts’ — which allowed states to enforce mandatory vaccination — set a clear precedent for the temporary suspension of some civil liberties during a public health crisis (like the Coronavirus pandemic).
However, the right’s evocation of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the lockdown debate is an all too familiar ploy from Republicans. Whether it relates to improving healthcare access, passing gun control or, expanding the Government’s size in order to control climate change, the right have consistently used the language of ‘freedom’ to push back against progressive changes; especially when such change threatens to fundamentally change the existing economic system … Continue reading (although it’s not really worth the effort being more of the same)
Reply from Thorpy
Freedom is slavery,
War is peace,
Ignorance is strength. (George Orwell — who was a socialist BTW — in “1984”)
What I find most comical about articles like this is the people who will be falling over themselves to agree with its sentiments would quickly become apoplectic with rage if some religious type showed up and said: “God created the world and everything in it quite recently and so the pandemic must be His Holy Will therefore it is wrong to interfere with the progress of the disease — oh and by the way Jesus just rode by on his dinosaur.”
Can you imagine the responses? They be screaming evolution this and evolution that. Yet in responses to articles like this they are blissfully unaware they are supporting the antithesis of evolution. Charles Darwin’s case was built on “survival of the fittest,” which as I always point ou does not mean those who go to the gym four times a week or run marathons should dominate, but that the species will be preserved by the survival of those member best able to adapt to and deal with environmental challenges. This is why the hand wringers and breast beaters are now lobbying government to throw disproportionate amount of resource into ensuring the survival of the weakest.
This may sound harsh but we are dealing with nature or possible a misguided attempt to meddle with nature, and will pay the price, Nature is ruthless, nature is brutal, Lord Tennyson knew what he was on about when in the poem In Memoriam he coined the phrase, “Nature, red in tooth and claw.”
COVID — 19, as the authorities in Europe (I don’t know about the USA — reliable information is hard to find,) are now acknowledging, is not a serious threat to people below retiring age who are in general god health. Placing entire nations under house arrest does not protect the vulnerable, in fact it makes them more vulnerable (as again is now being acknowledged because public opinion demanded a clear definition of what COVID related deaths actually means. Turns out it includes people whose deaths were not due to any Coronavirus variant but due to urgent medical help being unavailable because of lockdown.
Actually it is a risk to everyone of any age. Even if you say it isn’t, which isn’t true, then that means retirees aren’t of value to society and only the young deserve to live?
You opted to retire due to health reasons (as did I, unfortunately) so by your logic, you and I deserve to die because COVID-19 only affects retirees, right?
No Blaine, I did not say COVID — 19 only affects retirees or anything like that, and though I suspect your comment is a deliberate attempt to undermine what I wrote, I have to say if that is what you genuinely thought I meant, your literacy skills could use a little work.
What I said was “as authorities in Europe [ … ] are now acknowledging, [COVID19] is not a serious threat to people below retiring age who are in general good health.”
Now let’s think about what that means, thinking might be a new experience for you but I’m assure all human beings are capable of it,) if as I point our after researching the issue, authorities in Europe are acknowledging something, then I am not “stating it” but merely reporting it.
So what are these European authorities saying and why (and the UK Chief Medical Officer has repeated this three times now,): Quoting official figures that prove 90% of COVID — 19 related deaths have been in people aged over 65 who also had long term heath problems, with cardio — pulmonary illness, diabetes certain cancers involved in a very high number of cases.
Younger people with ongoing problems are also more vulnerable to COVID — 19 than those in good health (now it must be obvious even to you, there’s logic in that,) and official statistics show there is a link between obesity and death / serious illness caused by this virus.
But as you sat it is a risk to everybody, a very small risk to the young and fit, a much higher risk to the old and sick. Again you ought to be able to spot the logic in that. The older we get the closer we are to dying. Another statistic forced out of the UK health authorities is that over the three months the pandemic has been running, in this nation of 63 million, just 238 people who were under 45 and had no ongoing health concerns have suffered COVID — 19 related deaths. So the risk to healthy young people is about the same as dying in a road accident, though it’s much more likely than dying because of spontaneous combustion or in a bizarre gardening accident.
So you should now see that your interpretation of my comment was completely wrong but as I noted above, I suspect your misdirection was intentional.