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.

Genocide can apply in a sense to mean a complete decimation, annihilation focused on a specific entity. Whether or not this C19 was specifically created and unleashed to target a specific entity is left to be seen. If the purpose was for culling the population then partly for now, it's created massive controlled global isolation.
There are some who feel this was deliberate. A term a friend used was germ warfare.

...How many posters for example vote the way their dad’s did? I did, and I realised it later in life, and then realised the constituency I’m in you could put a blue rosette on my flaccid penis and it’d still be a landslide for it...

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.

I’ve never seen you be anything but critical of this government though that’s my point. I read and post on this - by design - biased forum because it’s about football and arsenal which every now and then meanders this way and that in a mostly relaxed kind of way.

People on the subject of politics always think they’re being objective, the way I’ve seen stuff used over the last few weeks has been pretty self serving for which ever point people want to make.

Objectivity also requires correct information which people are very choosy about what they take in and how they take it. No one knows the internal works of government nor the personal motivations of each member of cabinet nor how much a post on the theoretical employment of an arm of eugenics made years ago is affecting public policy, no matter how much they pretend to. And to use that to build some kind of argument on is so laughable I can’t believe anyone has the gall to say that’s remotely objective when they loudly bang the drum for the other side anyway.