Ditto - le bouleversement...vs "let it rip" is NOT the choice.. Archived Message
Posted by David Macilwain on August 9, 2020, 2:30 pm, in reply to "Re: It's the same debate, because ... "
As you say Rippon, our world HAS been turned upside down, and most alarmingly people have not just accepted it but are jeering and sneering at those who haven't or won't. I am daily stunned by this bouleversement in social relations, playing out on this board with slights against the non-conformers or "covidiots" such as accusations we are happy to see it "just let rip". I take extreme exception to this accusation, which is constantly levelled at me when I attempt a balancing viewpoint, such as finding a reason why 25% of people who tested positive were found not to be self-isolating at home as demanded. My reasoning - that if 25% of a group of people are doing something there is clearly a reason, which is not that they are "irresponsible" or "don't care about others lives being put at risk". I think you would find that they care just as much about their families and children, and are going out to work because if they don't those families won't have enough to eat, because the selfish bastards who are "working" from home don't pay them. In fact it is those people, the ones who are calling tragic the deaths of old folk in aged care, who they didn't give a damn about and hived off to the private sector to profit from, who would be happy to 'let it rip", so long as they could end up on top of the pile. A couple of weeks ago, as the "treasurer" announced that Australia's debt would be $850 Billion by 2021, or 45% of GDP, it was noted that the Government's sale of $17 billion of DEBT had been oversubscribed to $50 billion. The debt was in government bonds at 0.5% for 5 years, and it was bought partly by the reserve bank with money that they printed. We have offered to give Lebanon $2 million in aid. btw, agreeing with the author of the Spectator article posted above, I absolutely think the infection should be allowed to "let rip" through the young and healthy population so as to arrive at a situation where the older and less healthy will be protected by the herd. I also accept that old people generally die of something between the ages of 80 and 90, and often are "allowed" to, without massive interventions.
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- While people here are obsessing on masks and HCQ, a more significant controversy will be compulsory - Shyaku August 8, 2020, 6:49 pm
- To boldly go where no vaccination has gone before... - Jamie August 8, 2020, 7:11 pm
- It's the same debate, because ... - rippon August 8, 2020, 8:15 pm
- Yes! That underlying motive has become so clear that you have to be wilfully blind not to see it.NOM - Rhisiart Gwilym August 8, 2020, 8:30 pm
- No, you have been distracted. Nm - Shyaku August 8, 2020, 8:40 pm
- Re: It's the same debate, because ... - Willem August 8, 2020, 10:24 pm
- Re: It's the same debate, because ... - johnlilburne August 9, 2020, 12:11 pm
|
|