Kiwipete, presumably.......

Disagree that “herd immunity” is precisely that? (It kills 1-3%)

Yes or no

It’s a willing decision to kill 3 percent of the population

There are 66 million living in the UK. Your wrong,admit it

Now that Hazuki has eloquently explained it in the post above this one, I look forward to your retraction.

Sorry I can’t. It’s for her to decide and if she wants to keep it quiet, that’s her right. It isn’t Daz though.

Now that Hazuki has eloquently explained it in the post above this one, I look forward to your retraction.

Kiwi Pet...

You love the nazi-related lingo don't you TG. First we had eugenics, now we've got 'genocidal'.

Why is there always one vile poster on the forum, a troll amongst trolls.

TG you really are a sick fucka......................

He’s wrong too then as he's referring to Scandinavia not the UK

a very rough estimate suggests that we will only reach herd immunity to Covid-19 when approximately 60% of the population is immune (and remember that immunity is currently only reached by getting the infection as we have no vaccine!). The major downside is that this will mean that in the UK alone at least 36 million people will need to be infected and recover. It is almost impossible to predict what that will mean in terms of human costs but we are conservatively looking at 10,000s deaths, and possibly at 100,000s of death

At that point you are making a policy decision to kill thousands in the uk without a single attempt to save lives. Pretty much the definition of genocide

Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group". As with murder, I think you have to show intent. i.e. killing, with malice aforethought, is the point.

The point of targeting herd immunity is to protect the population, including the elderly and vulnerable. Not enforcing lockdown is bad, maybe even criminally negligent, policy.

Unless the purpose is to wipe out certain groups, it is not genocide. When deaths are an unintended, even if foreseen and negligent, side effect, it is not genocide.

The deliberate killing of a large group of people.

So if you factually know it kills 3% of a certain demographic (typical old
Or people with repository issues) it’s genocide

Not as we traditionally associate it. For example nazi death camps etc but it’s a genocide policy

Vile poster.............................

He’s wrong too then as he's referring to Scandinavia not the UK

Breaking news: forum reels in shock as Top Gun reveals he's right and everyone else is wrong.

My two pence worth.

Genocide is a very specific word with specific meaning that in no way covers any action which could result in the deaths of *only* 1-3% of the population, and then at random. I think it's very wrong to use such a powerful and specific word so wrongly.

I also don't think that the current HMG policy could be described as eugenics either because there's no specificity to who catches this/dies from it. Also with the elderly being both the most at risk and the most likely to vote Tory it would be a ridiculous concept to pursue.

But, and it is a big but, we have a government led by people who do believe in eugenics. People who do believe that their genes make them superior. People who do believe that there is an underclass which has no productive use to the economy. People who look down on those who didn't have the advantages they had and see them as lesser.

Have these beliefs influenced (and led to) to the current situation? Absolutely. The callous disregard for the number of deaths that current policy will cause is an obvious result of that. But underlying beliefs leading to a situation is not the same as practicing an actual policy.

What we're seeing now could be better described as the clearest example of the continuation of the anarcho-capitalism we've endured for a decade. A decision was made to support the economy over the population. Also political decisions were made to not take the advantages of supply offered by the EU at any cost. Any cost. Herd immunity was a stupid idea from the start as this type of policy has only ever worked in conjunction with a vacine - ironically they gave the examples of polio and smallpox to illustrate how herd immunity works. Taken down to basics the policy was to let the virus run through the country in the shortest possible time regardless of the deaths this would cause. In fact this policy was encouraged by government actually saying people should go out an catch it! Cheltenham was allowed to go ahead when it was obviously a terrible idea (and you don't need hindsight for that) with government advice saying it was fine. LTG (I believe) said he wouldn't have gone there, and neither would I, but people were being advised by a government they trust (!) that it wasn't a problem. People were actually being told to go out and catch it like a '70s chicken pox party. The one break we had in this was actually Arteta testing positive and that leading to football being cancelled because otherwise upwards of a million people would have gone to football that weekend, not to mention all the people that are around football matches. The number of vectors that would have created would have been horrific.

So for me, whilst this policy is proposed and supported by eugenisists, and influenced by that belief, I don't see how it could specifically be called a eugenic policy as there is no precision to it which is at the core of eugenics.

We will agree to disagree on the genocide comments. Genocide isn’t defined by the size of percentage it’s simply the deliberate killing of a large group of people.

A strategy for “herd immunity” isn’t genocide, nor is it happening, why are you talking about it???

Every poster who is criticising or supporting this govt has done so in every mention of them they’ve ever made, and if the other lot were in vice versa the same same thing would be happening. So why do you think anything you’re saying carries any weight? Politics is sectarian and reveals itself as such when people think they’re making objective points supported by facts, when they’re actually finding facts to support their emotional decision. Case in point, this forum.

Bernard, John1, Dec and everyone else who posted their personal circumstances this week, I hope all goes well in the coming weeks.

My two pence worth.

Genocide is a very specific word with specific meaning that in no way covers any action which could result in the deaths of *only* 1-3% of the population, and then at random. I think it's very wrong to use such a powerful and specific word so wrongly.

I also don't think that the current HMG policy could be described as eugenics either because there's no specificity to who catches this/dies from it. Also with the elderly being both the most at risk and the most likely to vote Tory it would be a ridiculous concept to pursue.

But, and it is a big but, we have a government led by people who do believe in eugenics. People who do believe that their genes make them superior. People who do believe that there is an underclass which has no productive use to the economy. People who look down on those who didn't have the advantages they had and see them as lesser.

Have these beliefs influenced (and led to) to the current situation? Absolutely. The callous disregard for the number of deaths that current policy will cause is an obvious result of that. But underlying beliefs leading to a situation is not the same as practicing an actual policy.

What we're seeing now could be better described as the clearest example of the continuation of the anarcho-capitalism we've endured for a decade. A decision was made to support the economy over the population. Also political decisions were made to not take the advantages of supply offered by the EU at any cost. Any cost. Herd immunity was a stupid idea from the start as this type of policy has only ever worked in conjunction with a vacine - ironically they gave the examples of polio and smallpox to illustrate how herd immunity works. Taken down to basics the policy was to let the virus run through the country in the shortest possible time regardless of the deaths this would cause. In fact this policy was encouraged by government actually saying people should go out an catch it! Cheltenham was allowed to go ahead when it was obviously a terrible idea (and you don't need hindsight for that) with government advice saying it was fine. LTG (I believe) said he wouldn't have gone there, and neither would I, but people were being advised by a government they trust (!) that it wasn't a problem. People were actually being told to go out and catch it like a '70s chicken pox party. The one break we had in this was actually Arteta testing positive and that leading to football being cancelled because otherwise upwards of a million people would have gone to football that weekend, not to mention all the people that are around football matches. The number of vectors that would have created would have been horrific.

So for me, whilst this policy is proposed and supported by eugenisists, and influenced by that belief, I don't see how it could specifically be called a eugenic policy as there is no precision to it which is at the core of eugenics.

Your essentially saying people cant be subjective ?

This is incorrect. I hate the current government but think Matt Hancock has been very good,

Unless your brain has been totally washed like the forum imbecile some people are capable of a viewpoint without being tribal.

exileds post for example, he’s being subjective. That’s not some
View he’s forcing himself to find. He’s not been listening to an echo chamber it’s just what he thinks.

The question is still how do we get out of this situation? When will they lift then 'instruction' to not go out apart from for the 4 reasons that are acceptable.

I'd love to hear how you would do it and when. 3 months 6 months a year?

Do we wait for an antiviral?