The COVID humbug thread

Interesting stuff. I would take issue with his inexact language which occasionally veers off into the weeds (eg., “…injectable products that confer no immunity at all”) because although it doesn’t undermine the general argument, it makes him look like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But hey, he’s a sociologist*, so I guess he gets a pass. I would be really interested to know if any lawyers have a similar take on ‘mandates’ and whether there is any legal recourse for the average citizen.

I particularly like this bit:

The Mental Health Act Section 136 begins:

"If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons …

(a) remove the person to a place of safety within the meaning of section 135, or …"

Which suggests that it’s the responsibility of the police to haul off various deluded people in positions of power for assessment by a psychiatrist because they a danger to themselves and others and should probably be detained for treatment. Not gonna happen, for obvious reasons.

*How many sociologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Only one, but the lightbulb must be aware of its roots in Western Imperialism, and must truly want to change.

2 Likes

The opinions are out there.

Since we’re talking about Canada for a moment…

Here’s one kind of tendency:

Follow-up:

(That’s the lawyer speaking, not the judge. But keep in mind, judges are basically lawyers who got promoted.)

And here’s another kind of tendency:

Not to go too far off topic, but it recently emerged that a tax court judge was supposedly barred from hearing cases involving Muslims for a few months pending a review of his conduct outside the court, to avoid even the perception of bias. (He was eventually cleared.) There’s a theory going around that judges who insist on covid measures in their own courts are unwittingly setting themselves up for accusations of bias.

As for legal opinions on mandates in general, it’s a bit complicated, but I don’t see them (in general) achieving kosher status in the end. One comment that recently came from a former premier who was around when the constitution was being negotiated was that it will take years for any of these cases to get to the Supreme Court unless one of the governments (provincial or federal) requests a reference, but so far the political will to do that has not been found. I suspect the proposed billion dollar fund to “help” the provinces implement vaccine passports (so a mean average of $100 million per province) would mostly be spent on legal fees, but that depends on the election next week, and the odds don’t look good for the party that proposed it.

2 Likes

Harbic said:

“In my own [opinion] the great majority of people who are not getting their double vaccination do not trust science … I think [they] lack a considerable amount of sophistication, and also lack a certain amount of social responsibility to other members of the community. So they’re not the kind of jurors I would want on my jury anyway.”
[/quote]

I wonder what he would think and say about those jurors who perform a myriad of other ‘unscientific behaviors and decisions’ that end up costing society billions and billions of dollars each and every year - such as having a poor diet and not getting enough exercise. Those two things combined contribute far far more stress on the rest of the population that Covid could ever do. These two things also increase one’s risk factor of becoming seriously ill and dying ‘of Covid’ by a massive factor.

Social responsibility, indeed.

3 Likes

Easy way to get out of doing it. Give you plate of shit and then ask you to prove you are good enough to eat the shit.

2 Likes

This statement is a perfect example of impudent lie. Although it seems to be popular.

4 Likes

It’s very difficult to prove a statement starting with “in my opinion” is a lie. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It’s actually quite possible to falsify that one by - just off the top of my head - using a standard (or at least well-tested) questionnaire on the potential jurors to elucidate their knowledge of and trust in science (that would have to be done by an actual scientist, obviously). You’d then find out if the two groups differed. A judge or lawyer should not be making such sweeping statements without at least some sort of evidence.

Perhaps also worth pointing out that people who are vaccinated may be more compliant than people who are not, and will therefore tend to go with the crowd (most of the vaxed population got their shot not because they thought they needed it but because they thought it was “the right thing to do”). That’s precisely the sort of person you don’t want on a jury.

2 Likes

Yes, in a legal sense. However the point is that opinion repeated many times and shared by the majority becomes “true”.

1 Like

I’ve read several legal opinions (from people who appear to know their stuff - lawyers working for human-rights organisations and suchlike) suggesting that several of the UK “rules” are unconstitutional and/or unlawful. The arguments are mostly based on purported effectiveness (an ineffective measure cannot be justified under public health law) and tests of reasonableness in relation to Article 5 of the UDHR. But the problem is this: to have those questions addressed, you need to get a judicial review. And that’s eye-wateringly expensive. The bottom line is that the general public has no legal recourse, and although there is a bit of “judicial activism”, the law still stands unchallenged.

So the question is: what’s the ordinary Joe supposed to do in those circumstances? Is civil disobedience - and acceptance of crippling fines - the only recourse?

2 Likes

Vote for a less bad government.

And in the meantime you just have to put up with it?

What if no such government exists? Just out of curiosity, I was looking around at various countries to see what sort of political parties have sprung up in the wake of COVID. It’s disappointing to see that they’re all nutcases. So basically people are going to get the choice of the current government (or the mainstream opposition, who aren’t much different), or a government run by QAnon.

3 Likes

Churchill V

When you have a better idea, do tell. :slight_smile:


In the one particular case that I’m following most closely, the main non-mainstream party was not created by covid. Based on all published polling data, it is in absolutely no danger of forming government, but it is in significant danger of gaining (re-)entry to Parliament. Also, polls show it rising considerably in recent weeks. The logical conclusion is, people are turning to it as an alternative, whether for “protest votes” or because they want to see it in Parliament. (The state broadcaster published a diagram purporting to show where the new support was coming from: mostly from the party it splintered from a few years ago, but to some extent from all the other parties.)

As I recently pointed out, in a certain other major country there is a new party formed for the purpose of opposing covid measures, but the main non-mainstream party over there also existed before covid and also seems to be popular among those opposed to covid measures in general. The state broadcaster did a ~half hour interview with the party’s big potato (I’m not sure if he’s technically the “leader” or not) that was quite hostile but still civil, and he basically said yes we’re libertarian on covid, deal with it. Like in the other country, this party is not in danger of winning the election, but it will have a voice in the legislature anyway, so at this point people who perceive it as the only credible “alternative” will presumably vote for it specifically for the purpose of opposing covid measures.

So basically people are going to get the choice of the current government (or the mainstream opposition, who aren’t much different), or a government run by QAnon.

Not quite. The main-non-main parties tend to be run by people who have their heads up their dark places just like the other parties, and perhaps a bit farther up, but they’re also professionals, just like the other parties (perhaps slightly less professional, but the proof is in the pudding). They tend to attract real wackos at a higher rate, yes, but that doesn’t mean the percentage of the population suffering from real wackiness will magically metastasize if such parties gain larger representation.

In the US it’s a bit different because one of the main-main parties now has a wacky faction more-or-less in control, but most countries are not the US. :2cents:

1 Like

Getting back to the conspiracy theories, I came across this document, which may be of historical interest:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/884760/Our_plan_to_rebuild_The_UK_Government_s_COVID-19_recovery_strategy.pdf#page=33

Notice the title: this was published in May 2020, when the UK was in the middle of the “first wave”. Although there had been 36,000 deaths at this point, only 800 were under 50, and 30,000 had been over 70. Many of the latter were in nursing homes, and as it later transpired, there was considerable doubt over how many of those old people really had died “of or with COVID”.

It was clear that COVID wasn’t a mortal threat to the country in the same way that MERS might have been, so there was no obvious reason to believe that the UK would ever need to be “rebuilt”. On the other hand, the WEF had had “build back better” on the agenda for at least a couple of years, and the echoing of this language ought to raise an eyebrow or two.

A few interesting points:

  • The paper explicitly states that the NHS was not “overwhelmed” at this point, and in fact had spare capacity. At no point in the pandemic did cases or deaths rise much beyond the peak of late April 2020. “The health services are being overwhelmed!” is and was a lie - or, at least, it omits the fact that doctors were being told to stay home and hospitals were being put into sleep mode.

  • It is surprisingly hard to discern any thread of logic within the document. While they purport to be balancing risks and harms, the document never seems to compare the two things, flipping from one consideration to the other at random and coming to (apparently) conflicting conclusions that are never reconciled - for example, promises to get back to normal as fast as possible are offset by handwringing about the necessity for restrictive measures, and assertions that … uh, the world won’t get back to normal.

  • There are just a few short words about improving the health of the nation, which amount to “we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing”.

  • There is precious little detail on exactly what needs to be rebuilt or how. The title, then, seems somewhat baffling.

2 Likes

That document is super suss. Talk about fodder for consiracy theorists.

No wonder people are calling this a ‘plandemic.’

If it didn’t come directly from the UK govt, people would think the existence of such a document was ‘fake news.’

3 Likes

Either she has just seen the wood from the trees or she’s long been red pilled:

1 Like

Why don’t you just name the countries?

@discobot quote

:left_speech_bubble: Each day, accept everything that comes to you as a gift. At night, mentally give it all back. In this way, you become free. — Daniel Levin

2 Likes

which direction is taiwan heading? do you forsee theyll ever forgo their zero covid policy?

My bet is that it’ll end in ignominy and chaos. The guys at the top continually flipflop on ‘zero COVID’ - one day they’ll be fairly explicit about it, and another day they’ll say they’re just trying to “control” COVID (whatever that even means). I suspect they’re deliberately trying to keep their aims vague so that they can’t be held to account when it all turns pearshaped.

Isolating an entire country is futile - and not really possible. Delta will get here, it will spread, a few old/sick people will die, but in general nothing seriously awful will happen. But because Chen et al have set themselves up as The Saviours Of Mankind, they’ll have take increasingly desperate measures to prove that they’re still in control of the virus. None of it will work, for obvious reasons, but they’ll keep doing it anyway, and probably bring the country to its knees, much like Australia.

It’s possible they’ll announce that some arbitrary vaccination target has been met and therefore they can just let it rip. But they tried that in Singapore and then lost their nerve. I can see something similar panning out here.

2 Likes