I don't particularly agree with masks because I don't see any benefit from them but I don't see much point in violence. If you don't want to wear one quote the Equalities Act 2010 wear if you say you could be disadvantaged by wearing a mask if forced to, if a police officer or anyone else for that matter insists of proof, they are in breach of the law. I dont go out much but if I do I tend to wear one in a shop.
Masks ARE effective because the virus doesn't get transferred as a single cell, but in a droplet of water/spittle that the mask has a good chance of stopping. However it is better at catching the droplets you breathe out as they are bigger before they get broken down in air. It probably only stops two thirds of transmission inwards but more like 90% outwards. That's a massive improvement in a virus that grows exponentially. Which is why it's silly to suggest this is a freedom of choice matter. My mask mostly protects others
A lot of people might want to catch it though rather than have a vaccination. Surely both would have the same result.
Not for the people you give it to while asymptomatic or for the health workers who have to treat them.
Obviously the best result for an individual is that everyone else gets vaccinated so you avoid the tiny risk. So it's no surprise that there are people arguing against compulsory vaccination on freedom of choice grounds. But it's really just selfishness.
I don't think one exercising one's choice is selfish. My year at school and a couple of years below me had a few children disabled by Thalidomide. I bet their mothers had wished they had exercised their choice. Life always has been about the survival of the fittest and choices people make affect that survival rate. I have not been very well lately and probably was lucky to survive COVID. I will probably one of the first affected if one can get it twice, but I think that it is selfish for me to expect the younger generation to take a risk, however small, on my behalf. In fact, I think that it would be selfish of me to expect the youngsters of today to mortgage their futures paying for lockdowns to protect the likes of me. Had I drank less, eaten less, smoked less, played less rugby, taken less drugs perhaps I would have less/no: diabetes, gout, blood disorders, obesity, arthritis and COVID would not have affected me so much. Why should the kids have to give up their futures to look after me, because when I had the opportunity I didn't bother to look after myself?
The lockdowns are necessary to save lives. Without them the economic damage would be worse as the epidemic would spiral out of control and the NHS would be destroyed. So the choice you think others can make is a completely false one. Anything that helps the virus multiply is literally killing people and destroying the economy.
Literally millions would die. With competent governments like in NZ that can be reduced by a factor if 1000 or more while the vaccine is rolled out. A vaccine has almost zero chance of killing anyone, herd immunity is going to cost 1% of the population at least and probably the same again in other diseases left untreated as the NHS is overwhelmed.
Millions have not died in Sweden, where measures have not been draconian, and city population size/densities/movements are congruent to those in the UK.
No more people have died this year than any other year so basically covid is taking out those who would have died anyway. if you do the maths the maximum who could die in the UK is 0.2/100*68M less the amount who have already died. Roughly 86k. Many of those will die with or without covid anyway. This lockdown rubbish is destroying businesses and livelihoods to save a few old farts like me, Trust me, it ain't worth it.
My millions referred to the whole world. As for Sweden, they seem to have very good compliance with measures like distancing which helped them in the first wave. But they have more than 50 times as many deaths pro rata as NZ and have just closed their secondary schools to reduce rising cases.
Sorry. This is utter nonsense. Deaths are above average despite the lockdowns. The lockdowns have also prevented knock on deaths from other diseases. Our government has managed it worse than almost any other, though.
Yes. the Sweden who even pinning that to them, have cumulative death totals far below those euro nations that went full draconian lockdown.
I think you mean the Sweden that the alt right have held up as a great example of herd immunity working, which has been doing considerably worse than their immediate neighbours Sweden: 279,000 cases, 7067 deaths Norway: 38,200 cases, 354 deaths Finland: 27,671 cases, 399 deaths And let me debunk the obvious follow-up comments since I'm here Sweden: 10.3m population, 64.7sq mi density Norway: 5.4m population, 36.8sq mi density Finland: 5.5m population, 41.4sq mi density The numbers simply do not match the opinion - which is what it is, an opinion, and not a well-founded one - that countries should follow Sweden's lead. Instead they serve as another example of people using data modelling while not bothering to research what herd immunity actually involves
