The Royal Commission Report

[TheDemonLord]

Link/

713 pages, I am skim reading through it at the moment. I have seen some reporting on it already that seems contradictory:

Left-wing outlets are saying the report confirms Vaccine Mandates were needed.
Right-wing outlets are saying the report confirms Mandates did a lot of social harm.

I suspect that the jist of the report will be: Oops we went a bit far, but we are all friends now, right?

However, if anyone is feeling a few bouts of insomnia and wants some light reading - have at it - I will try and finish it over the course of the next few days and then probably rage at how no government ministers (or former ministers) are recommended to be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly, but then that is just me.

[neels]

I suspect that the jist of the report will be: Oops we went a bit far, but we are all friends now, right?

I suspect you might be right.

Reaction to the first lockdown was for the most part 'yeah, fair enough' as a counter to the possibility of a large death count, when there were still a lot of unknowns.

The subsequent vaccine and mask mandates were very divisive, open to debate on their effectiveness and necessity, and negatively impacted some people.

The next wave and resulting lockdown, stemming from lifting of travel restrictions despite advice that the outcome would be exactly as occurred, was less well received thanks to the loss of public goodwill. It certainly didn't help that all of the country had their freedom impacted for an extended period because people in Auckland wouldn't behave themselves and prolonged the outbreak, stemming from a dumb statement at the start that the rest of the country would be stuck at one level below even when there were no Covid cases where they were.

So yes, probably true that it went a bit far, people have long memories, and some are still dealing with the personal impact of it all, so not likely to be friends for a while yet.

[pete376403]

Nothing that the government did or enacted affected me adversely to any great degree and I am still alive so I am happy. Couldn't GAF about someone else's perceived infringement of personal liberties other than to note that, they too are still alive - which in some cases is quite unfortunate.

[TheDemonLord]

Nothing that the government did or enacted affected me adversely to any great degree and I am still alive so I am happy. Couldn't GAF about someone else's perceived infringement of personal liberties other than to note that, they too are still alive - which in some cases is quite unfortunate.

That line of argument is contingent on the infringement of your civil liberties having a direct impact on your still being alive.

It is the difference between someone kicking in your door, flooding your house and causing thousands of dollars worth of damage vs someone seeing your house is on fire, you still in it, kicking in your door, using water to put out the fire and as a by-product, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.

The first lockdown (although I think was unecessary) - okay, given the information at the time could be justified, to a degree.

Everything after that was completely uneccessary and tyrannical.

[pete376403]

That line of argument is contingent on the infringement of your civil liberties having a direct impact on your still being alive.

It is the difference between someone kicking in your door, flooding your house and causing thousands of dollars worth of damage vs someone seeing your house is on fire, you still in it, kicking in your door, using water to put out the fire and as a by-product, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.

The first lockdown (although I think was unecessary) - okay, given the information at the time could be justified, to a degree.

Everything after that was completely uneccessary and tyrannical.

There are plenty of examples of people who decided their liberties were more important than their survival. Hope they feel their death was worth something.

[Grumph]

There are plenty of examples of people who decided their liberties were more important than their survival. Hope they feel their death was worth something.

Quite. And were happy to expose the vulnerable as collateral damage to enforcing their personal liberties.

As one of the vulnerable -then and now - I was ofen surprised at the low levels of consideration I saw

If you accept that one of the primary duties of a government is to protect it's citizens from harm, then I see nothing wrong in what was done.

When this pandemic is compared to the influenza one post WW1, a hell of a lot of lives were saved this time round.
It could have been a lot worse.

And if the libertarians and anti-vaccers have their way, the next one will be very bad.

[HenryDorsetCase]

There are plenty of examples of people who decided their liberties were more important than their survival. Hope they feel their death was worth something.

I dont give a fuck about those selfish cunts. And usually they were people who would live through it, unfortunately. The thing that got to me was the fact they gave precisely zero fucks about anyone else - in particular to those who were vulnerable by age (babies, children, or elderly) or other infirmity.

No wonder it was seized on by the maggots and their ilk - their "ethos" (not sure it deserves that title) of "Fuck you, I got mine" fits perfectly.

Basically it is the death of the social contract.

[TheDemonLord]

Quite. And were happy to expose the vulnerable as collateral damage to enforcing their personal liberties.

As one of the vulnerable -then and now - I was ofen surprised at the low levels of consideration I saw

If you accept that one of the primary duties of a government is to protect it's citizens from harm, then I see nothing wrong in what was done.

When this pandemic is compared to the influenza one post WW1, a hell of a lot of lives were saved this time round.
It could have been a lot worse.

And if the libertarians and anti-vaccers have their way, the next one will be very bad.

So, how far does that primary duty go to protect from harm? Who defines the Harm?

Should we put every male from the ages of about 14 to 35 in isolation, afterall, that would *absolutely* protect a lot of people from harm (most murders, robberies, assaults, Rapes etc. etc.)

Of course, I am making an absolutely absurd proposal - however, from your philosophical position - how do you argue against it?

See, I view the primary role of Government is to protect the natural rights of the citizens. The right to bodily autonomy for example is the same right that means when someone throws a punch at you, you have grounds for a redress of grievance. Whether that be to throw one back and defend yourself or see them in court for a charge of assault.

And from that position, it would be absolutely reprehensible to imprison every male, because it would infringe upon their natural rights.

It is also the right that allows you to decline medical interventions. Prior to 2020 the notion that an entire cohort of Citizenry would be denied their natural rights over a choice to get a medical procedure would have been absolutely absurd.

You say happy to expose the Vulnerable - I don't recall ever walking into an Old Folks home and coughing on everyone. The issue here is the externalization of responsibility.

Consider this - You choose to Ride a Motorbike, you do so in the knowledge that you are exposing yourself to increased risk. In my world view, you can take steps to address the risk to a point you are comfortable with - you can wear safety gear, you can choose when and where you ride, you can choose whether to ride on public roads and you can choose not to ride at all.

Any individual making a choice to wear a mask or take the vaccine or do any N number of interventions to manage the risk for themselves is something I will always support.

But the moment you say: You have to do as I say because of the risk to me - see, that is where we get into problems. It would be the equivalent of saying I want to go for a ride on my Motorbike, so every car driver has to get off the road.

As for the comparison to the Spanish Flu - the accepted numbers at 500 million cases, 25-50 million deaths - that would make the fatility rate between 5-10%.

Covid, on the other hand had a mortality rate of 0.9% (776,840,500 cases, 7,075,455 deaths - source world in Data) - and that figure does not discriminate between the Died with Covid and died from Covid (as someone pointed out, quite famously on KB, got ridiculed by a bunch of people - only for the NZ Government to announce a week later that they were changing the way they report Covid Deaths - based on that very problem)

In short - it was a massive over-reaction and we are paying the price, still, for it.

[TheDemonLord]

I dont give a fuck about those selfish cunts. And usually they were people who would live through it, unfortunately. The thing that got to me was the fact they gave precisely zero fucks about anyone else - in particular to those who were vulnerable by age (babies, children, or elderly) or other infirmity.

No wonder it was seized on by the maggots and their ilk - their "ethos" (not sure it deserves that title) of "Fuck you, I got mine" fits perfectly.

Basically it is the death of the social contract.

Yeah, except Babies and Children weren't at risk from Covid. At all.

Who is more Selfish - the person who wishes to make a decision for their own health or the person who insists the entire world make a decisions for theirs?

[jellywrestler]

Quite. And were happy to expose the vulnerable as collateral damage to enforcing their personal liberties.

As one of the vulnerable -then and now - I was ofen surprised at the low levels of consideration I saw

.

i was at a bakery in lower hutt when there was actually illness around, two blue wearing patch members were inside heroically wearing no masks, they went outside to fist an old patch wearer and he tore them to pieces, he knew their older family and ripped them a new arsehole on their desire to infect them,

It wasn't an easy time at all, but who else in the world did it better by a margin of note?

[BMWST?]

The vaccine did not afford any protection to people around you. You could still catch covid and you could still pass it on,so that supposed benfit of the vaccine was actually a lie by ommision.Pfizer had not tested the vacciine for transmission. It was assumed that it would behave the same as all the tradional vaccines before. And some people were harmed by the vaccine itself. And may still be caused harm.The long term effects of the MRNA technology is unknown.We still have excess deaths worldwide .All the excess deaths should have occured during the pandemic

[Kickaha]

.All the excess deaths should have occured during the pandemic

Not if the lockdowns, masks, vaccine afforded some protection, once all that was past then nature was going to catch up on those that should have died during covid times

[Grumph]

"who defines the harm?"

The medical professionals paid for their expertise.

I'm yet to be convinced that anyone on here has any more than a laymans knowledge of medicine.

Accordingly, if the authorities wanted a lockdown to save lives - mine among them - fine with me.

[pete376403]

Yeah, except Babies and Children weren't at risk from Covid. At all.

Who is more Selfish - the person who wishes to make a decision for their own health or the person who insists the entire world make a decisions for theirs?

Wonder if you would still feel that way if one of your own children was immuno-compromised? Would you be willing to sacrifice your own child on the alter of "natural rights"?

And remember, this covid-rodeo isn't over yet. Something may happen within your family to present you with that actual choice.

[jellywrestler]

I'm yet to be convinced that anyone on here has any more than a laymans knowledge of medicine.

.

I've seen Warwick in a nurses uniform so does that mean he's got more knowledge?