Coronavirus Pandemic

[Letters]

Not even a glimpse beyond the approved BBC version of events is permitted. At least a few peers are still interested in stuff that's apparently not happening, like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, for example. But not you.

Not me?
You keep mentioning these bills. I'm not ignoring you. I keep responding the same way. Which is:
Yes, I agree there are concerns. But my gut feeling is that they won't make as much difference as you think, if any. I don't believe we are sliding in to a police state.

Kids won't have to wear masks in school (a crime in itself), so that means (by some reasoning I can't possibly guess at) the raft of bills and legislation sneaked or sneaking into law isn't worth a mention.

Of course it's worth a mention. You've mentioned it plenty of times and I've responded plenty of times and I have again above.

Above you said "If control isn't the aim then why do we always end up with more restrictions and less wealth each time one of these euphemisms hits?"
and I said:
"What freedoms did we have 5 years ago - or 10 or 50 or however long you want to go back - that we don't have now?"

I note you've dodged the question. I'd suggest people have the same freedoms now than they have had in the past. Arguably more if you want to go back a bit further.
I'll remind you again that you were the one predicting all kinds of dystopia about 15 months ago. And you said those things would be happening "soon". Obviously that's a bit of a nebulous word, but I'd suggest that the exact opposite of what you predicted would happen has happened. Instead of restrictions tightening further they have been all but removed. A thing that confuses me about you is why don't you ever reflect on that? You haven't even acknowledged it. Why don't you think "well if I got that wrong, maybe I'm getting this wrong too"?

TL;DR - I don't think we have any less freedom now than we had in the past. If you disagree then tell me what you think has changed - I mean practically, what's different in our day to day life?
The couple of years were an outlier but they were temporary measures to deal with a solution. We can talk about whether the measures were proportionate but that's a separate discussion.
And yes, I agree that some of the bills being passed are of concern. But my gut feel is that they won't make as much difference as you suppose. Because, actually, I don't think the government are authoritarian. My evidence for that is the temporary and changing nature of the Covid restrictions - they had all the excuse they needed to impose more over the winter if they wanted to, but they didn't. And they have certainly been a lot less willing to lock us all up than some other governments.

[Niall_Quinn]

I note you've dodged the question.

I gave a concrete example. Ugly Patel even boasted about breaking from the "outmoded" common law. It's authoritarian in the extreme and terrifying in its implications.

But that's the other thing I was saying. You explain this to people and they say, no, that's not happening. Or no, that's not a problem because the state would never do that. Or, in your case, "that's a concern", but it doesn't represent a loss of liberty or a slide into authoritarianism - despite it being the very definition of those things. Then you go on to say there's no loss because I can't provide an example.

So. Hopeless.

[Letters]

OK. Well let's see what difference it makes to anyone's day to day life. My guess is - pretty much none. Although Patel is one to watch, admittedly.
You said "why do we always end up with more restrictions and less wealth each time one of these euphemisms hits" - you implied there was an ongoing erosion of our freedoms.
Hence my question:
"What freedoms did we have 5 years ago - or 10 or 50 or however long you want to go back - that we don't have now?"
Which you still haven't answered, but OK you gave an example of something which you believe will erode our freedoms.
So I guess we'll see. But as I've noted, your foresight has previously been shown to be less than 20:20.
Which isn't a criticism, none of knows for sure what's going to happen.
But you make these predictions with unshakable certainty which doesn't seem to be knocked when you're shown to be wrong.

[Niall_Quinn]

"What freedoms did we have 5 years ago - or 10 or 50 or however long you want to go back - that we don't have now?"

To pick one at random, I guess you've missed the ongoing censorship crisis? This is an outrageous and quite open assault on the exchange of ideas, opinions and even scientific debate. What has happened in the last year, let alone 5, has greatly reduced not just the opportunity for people to speak their mind but also for the broad population to be able to consume information so they can make up their own minds.

It has been censorship that has allowed the great covid scam to unfold, despite the ridiculousness of its "the science" narrative. In a world of open debate that narrative would have been shot to pieces in no time flat. As it is we now live in a place where a great number of people genuinely believe the covid narrative is genuine and based on actual science. Every professional voice that has exposed it has been shot down. The mere fact this is happening speaks against the credibility of the narrative being pushed. The truth has no need for censorship.

Taking that further and reflecting the utter bullshit that's happening today (and we should know better given even recent history) we have the Ukraine fantasy. Almost nothing of substance has penetrated the mainstream, due to the loss of open debate that has occurred in the last 5 years and is accelerating at breakneck pace.

Then there's the subversion of the legal system. The Assange situation is beyond the pale. Censorship inserts itself here too. People ought to be outraged and terrified about what has been done. But many genuinely believe Assange has committed some sort of crime, but more still don't even know the facts or are unaware anything is happening at all.

The bottom line, if the state wants to snatch you off the street and lock you up in contravention of every legal foundation that has been constructed over centuries, it can do it. If the state and its media accomplice want to smear and discredit you out of social existence it can be done. All of the safeguard have been removed.

Because you will obey in every respect, of course you will see no practical consequences in your own life (existence?). Just be sure not to ever step out of line and have a thought of your own. Because that now carries dire consequences. You do not control the state. The state controls you. And the state can (see the relevant bill) defy the law you yourself are bound by to keep you in line. But, as I say, that is not a concern in your case.

[Letters]

To pick one at random, I guess you've missed the ongoing censorship crisis? This is an outrageous and quite open assault on the exchange of ideas, opinions and even scientific debate.

Do you mean things like YouTube demonetising or even removing certain content? Or FB putting notifications on certain posts that they contain misleading information?
You might mean more than that, but I'll respond to what I've said for now.
I have mixed feelings about all that. Because I do believe in freedom of speech. But I do also think there are real dangers in the "post truth" world we now find ourselves in. As Ricky Gervais lamented, it used to be "my opinion is as good as your opinion", now it's "my opinion is as good as your fact".
An alarming number of people now believe that the earth is flat. 20 years ago no-one had heard of the flat earth society. Now there are flat earth conventions. Why? Because instead of some nutter shouting about flat earth on a street corner and passers by laughing at him, he can now set up a web site and with a fair wind reach millions of people. People are, on average, scientifically illiterate. So people who like a good conspiracy theory and don't understand science can get sucked in. There's no real danger in someone believing that the earth is flat, but other conspiracy theories or wrong beliefs are more harmful. That's particularly true in the area of medicine where people can seek "alternative" treatments which have no proven track record.

I do think there's a problem which requires a solution. I'm less sure what that solution is. Removing content doesn't feel right - I mean, they're private companies so have the right to, but given their reach they are setting themselves up as arbiters of truth. FB or YouTube flagging posts which contain misinformation seems like a decent compromise, it highlights that the content is disputed and gives links to alternative points of view.

But I don't agree that any of this hampers scientific debate. Papers are still published publicly for scrutiny and peer review. Nothing is being censored.
It might be that fringe views are not expressed in the mainstream but should they give voice to every outlying opinion?
And it might be that fringe views get less or even no funding because of course they do. You're not going to get very far asking for funding to conduct research into something which pretty much all experts in a field thing is wrong.

What has happened in the last year, let alone 5, has greatly reduced not just the opportunity for people to speak their mind but also for the broad population to be able to consume information so they can make up their own minds.

And yet we have far more diversity of opinion and more polarised opinions than ever. Because actually it's far easier these days for people to find alternative points of view.
And the worrying thing is we have more sources of information that ever and many of them pander to certain world views which makes people more entrenched in their world views and less likely to seek out alternative opinions.

What do you mean by the "great covid scam"? What is the "covid narrative"? And if all opposing voices have been censored then how do you know about them? They can't have been censored very well.

The bottom line, if the state wants to snatch you off the street and lock you up in contravention of every legal foundation that has been constructed over centuries, it can do it. If the state and its media accomplice want to smear and discredit you out of social existence it can be done. All of the safeguard have been removed.

And are you asserting that's a new thing? I reckon they've always been able to do that. And if anything they can't do it quietly any more, thanks to the internet and smart phones everything is on record and known to the public almost immediately. Thankfully, they generally don't do that so yeah, there are no practical consequences for me, or for you, or for almost anyone. Which is why you can post freely on here about how controlled you are without being snatched off the streets. And our relatively benign government is also why we are now pretty much back to normal now rather than having curfews and army checkpoints. Because they were never interested in controlling us to that degree, they were trying to deal with "a situation". I think we agree they made a hash of it, but that's a separate conversation.

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60319947

All remaining Covid restrictions in England - including the legal rule to self-isolate - could end later this month, Boris Johnson has said.

Under the current rules, anyone who tests positive must self-isolate for at least five days.

The current restrictions are due to expire on 24 March.

But Mr Johnson told MPs he expected the last domestic rules would end early as long as the positive trends in the data continued.

[Letters]

Ah knickers.
I have my first work trip - my first trip overseas anywhere actually - since the pandemic started next week.
I'm getting stressed about how it all works. I thought my Covid Pass thing was enough to travel, but it's saying something about pre-flight checks.
Do they do that at the airport?

[dazthegooner]

Yep Rubber gloves time

[WMUG]

Ah knickers.
I have my first work trip - my first trip overseas anywhere actually - since the pandemic started next week.
I'm getting stressed about how it all works. I thought my Covid Pass thing was enough to travel, but it's saying something about pre-flight checks.
Do they do that at the airport?

Depends on the destination country.

[Niall_Quinn]

Ah knickers.
I have my first work trip - my first trip overseas anywhere actually - since the pandemic started next week.
I'm getting stressed about how it all works. I thought my Covid Pass thing was enough to travel, but it's saying something about pre-flight checks.
Do they do that at the airport?

Don't worry about it. Everything is the same as it was before and it won't affect you.