Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Im not ignoring anyone ? Not sure what your on about

And just respond to the point, its not mandatory in any store as it stands. The law currently states they can ask but cant force you to wear one. They can try deny him entry but legally they cant make him

There is exceptions of course like health care settings and i think on tube and buses. But not if you wanted to go somewhere like river island for example 

The thing is Dem, they totally can deny him entry. He is entering their private property. They absolutely have the right to decide who they let in and who they don't. If saino's decide they'll only let masked people in, that's entirely up to them regardless of the government advice. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

The rate of deaths will never be zero though will it? Old and vulnerable people die every single year from viruses. They've been jabbed 3 times now and we've isolated and protected for 2 years.

According to the government's own figures, crude deaths per hundred-thousand during 2003 were about the same as 2020

1,019.90 and 1,016.20 respectively.

The age-standardised mortality rate for 2020 is similar to that of 2008 - 1,043.50 and 1,091.90 respectively.

https://tinyurl.com/yc57h3ak

 

   
   
   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Im not ignoring anyone ? Not sure what your on about

And just respond to the point, its not mandatory in any store as it stands. The law currently states they can ask but cant force you to wear one. They can try deny him entry but legally they cant make him

There is exceptions of course like health care settings and i think on tube and buses. But not if you wanted to go somewhere like river island for example 

This isn't about the law. It's about the regulations of a private business. 

If River Island want to mandate masks in their stores, it's in their right to do so, and kick you out if you refuse to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, choffer said:

The thing is Dem, they totally can deny him entry. He is entering their private property. They absolutely have the right to decide who they let in and who they don't. If saino's decide they'll only let masked people in, that's entirely up to them regardless of the government advice. 

Oh i accept the points you make there choffer. The point im making  is as the uk law has recently changed he is entitled to not wear his mask if he doesn't have to. Some places will let him and not care butothers as you rightly say may refuse him entry thats down to them.

Whether me you,stefan, or theresa mays verdict on this, its irrelevent if the uk law allows him not to wear a mask in certain places.  Its his choice thats whether we agree with him or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

England, not UK. England.

As in the place that currently has the highest rate of infection England.

What about the deaths in comparison to last year? Higher or lower?

Infections are not really important if people recover and actually build up their immune system aftee recovery. 

We might as well start reporting on how many people catch a cold or flu. Its the deaths statistic thats important- as your not stopping infections no matter what we do unfortunately 

Edited by Demitri_C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Oh i accept the points you make there choffer. The point im making  is as the uk law has recently changed he is entitled to not wear his mask if he doesn't have to. Some places will let him and not care butothers as you rightly say may refuse him entry thats down to them.

Whether me you,stefan, or theresa mays verdict on this, its irrelevent if the uk law allows him not to wear a mask in certain places.  Its his choice thats whether we agree with him or not

And he was in a place that mandates it. What's the argument here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

What about the deaths in comparison to last year? Higher or lower?

When the 2nd national lockdown was introduced in November 2020, there were fewer deaths than yesterday. Data is no longer driving decisions, it's to appease voices in the press and parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

And just respond to the point, its not mandatory in any store as it stands

  

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Its up to him if he doesnt want to wear leave him to it-its not required by law. So he is entitled to not wear it if he doesnt want to.

You're saying he has a right to not wear one, despite the business he was in stating he has to to remain in their business.

Edited by StefanAVFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seat68 said:

When the 2nd national lockdown was introduced in November 2020, there were fewer deaths than yesterday. Data is no longer driving decisions, it's to appease voices in the press and parliament. 

Agree with that seat68.

Probably less people vaccinated though back then

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

  

You're saying he has a right to not wear one, despite the business he was in stating he has to to remain in their business.

Did i say he was right or he was entitled  to do so as the english law says?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never understood the push back on wearing masks in the first place. It's no inconvenience at all, it's not especially uncomfortable really. The reasons for wearing a mask make good logical sense.

I understand the reticence with having a vaccine injection. It's a (very minor) medical procedure and can be unnerving for some.

But the mask thing.... just wear a bloody mask.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Demitri_C said:

Did i say he was right or he was entitled  to do so as the english law says?

The law is absolutely irrelevant though.

A private business can set the conditions of entry for their premises, as long as it doesn't directly contradict the law. If he wants to go to Sainsburys, he needs to wear a mask, and if he doesn't, he could have consequences either socially (like he experienced) or from being kicked out of their business.

If the law said 'you must not wear a mask' and a private business said 'you have to' I'd understand the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An almost identical example here would be smoking in pubs.

Right now, a business cannot allow it, because it's against the law.

If the law was reversed, but a pub still decided to ban it in their premises, you'd be a selfish word removed for continuing to smoke in there. You'd be getting the same looks experienced by Rodders, and you'd probably be kicked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

What about the deaths in comparison to last year? Higher or lower?

Infections are not really important if people recover and actually build up their immune system aftee recovery. 

We might as well start reporting on how many people catch a cold or flu. Its the deaths statistic thats important- as your not stopping infections no matter what we do unfortunately 

 

I think you may have missed my point.

But I would guess, in a nation where more people get covid, more people will become ill with covid. Where more become ill, more will be seriously ill. Where more are seriously ill, I’d guess more would die. Obviously only the weak ones though.

It’s not just deaths that are important, its the economic damage of having people off work ill, it’s the economic and personal damage of long covid.

I’m not advocating perpetual lockdown by the way. I’m just pointing out its not purely about death and nothing should ever be simply down to whether someone is legally obliged to act with empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The law is absolutely irrelevant though.

A private business can set the conditions of entry for their premises, as long as it doesn't directly contradict the law. If he wants to go to Sainsburys, he needs to wear a mask, and if he doesn't, he could have consequences either socially (like he experienced) or from being kicked out of their business.

If the law said 'you must not wear a mask' and a private business said 'you have to' I'd understand the point.

I think your mis-undertanding me stefan.

Im not saying and have not said once that you shouldnt wear a mask if your asked to. All i am saying is if the law says he doesnt have to he doesnt.

Where have i said i agree with the logic of not wearing masks? If you look i actually havent said that in any capacity. All i am saying he is entitled to. Just because i said he is entitled to do that that doesnt mean

A) i do it

B ) agree with it

C) think they should stand their ground

I hope that clears up my position

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â