Absolutely! What "they" did was beyond egregious, what was worse imho, however, was how many citizens were more than willing to give up their rights! Succumbed to these violations in the name of the greater good - I lost faith in the strength of humanity during those dark days.
"As scientists and public health officials in the United States learn more about the virus, and as we all see how bad the outbreak turns out to be, it is important that public policymaking remain firmly centered around science.
Unfortunately, our history of reactions to infectious disease outbreaks suggests that if this outbreak becomes severe, we’re likely to see strong pressure to the contrary. In particular, we can expect three things:
We can expect some to panic.
Unfortunately, there tends to be disproportionate hysteria and exaggerated fear around infectious diseases — especially when they are new. In 2009, the appearance of the H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) virus prompted some to call for measures like closing the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormously disruptive measure that, among other things, would have led to billions of dollars in lost economic activity. The H1N1 turned out to be no worse than a normal strain of the seasonal flu virus. In late 2014, many panicked over the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa, including a number of U.S. governors who imposed politically motivated quarantines on health care workers and others returning from West Africa. Those quarantines were completely unjustified by science. (In 2015 the ACLU, the Yale School of Public Health, and Yale Law School released a major report analyzing the response to Ebola.)
...
"...no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do.
We can expect pressure for counterproductive responses.
Most panicky responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts, only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to stopping the spread of communicable disease such as forced treatment and large-scale quarantine are, as three preeminent public health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the spread of disease."
Public panic will predictably spark calls for “tough,” even draconian measures that treat the problem like a law enforcement or national security issue rather than a public health matter. We at the ACLU have always acknowledged that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified. And the public health community has learned over time that treating sick people like potential enemies only spurs them to “go underground” and avoid the authorities, which exacerbates the spread of disease. The evidence is clear that travel bans and quarantines are not the solution. Also counterproductive are the targeting and stigmatization of vulnerable populations, another historically frequent response to frightening epidemics.
We can expect that Trump will lead the panic, not calm it.
In previous disease scares, Donald Trump has been among the most panicky and scientifically ungrounded public voices in the United States. During the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, he opposed allowing American doctors infected with the disease to be airlifted back to the United States for lifesaving treatment (tweeting, “KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE”). He also called for blocking all air traffic from West Africa.
As one expert advised in 2015, “Officials should avoid unrealistic reassurances or taking unnecessarily stringent measures so as to appear decisive.”"
...
"The job of our political leaders is to solicit and follow the guidance of public health experts in crafting a calm and rational response to an outbreak, to help the public understand the scientific facts of this disease, and to present an honest and mature appraisal of risk and the limits of human power to curb nature. Unfortunately, Trump and his administration have a terrible record when it comes to listening to scientists.
We don’t know how bad this outbreak will be. If this one is not severe, another one probably will be in the future. And the more dangerous an actual outbreak, the more important it is that our authorities respond with cool heads and based on science, and not intrude any more than strictly necessary on people’s civil liberties. "
Way back when CNN pretended to care about social and economic tolls on restrictions and quarantines:
The US coronavirus travel ban could backfire. Here’s how
“All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. “These measures may exacerbate the epidemic’s social and economic tolls. And can make us less safe."
"There can be major economic consequences
One reason countries may be wary of sharing information: the economic consequences of a travel ban can be devastating.
“It has massive economic implications,” Popescu says."
They can't say they didn't know. Or that they forgot, they were doing the best they could in a difficult situation. They knew. And said so. Until they decided to become the threat to civil liberties and freedom, the economy and lives that they said Trump would. They were right when they said Trump was F'ing up. He was, he did. Big time. When the world (including Australia) needed a US president to say "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," or "We will bear any burden, pay any price for the cause of liberty" we had one who said we needed to ban travel and stay home.
And when he did all of the little tyrants inside nearly every single leader in the once "free" westernized liberal democracies showed their true colors. They decided they'd see his F up...and raise him. They pushed all in on all the tyranny they said Trump would. Which is the only reason that our memory of his handling of plandemic is more favorable for him than our memory of them. Once you let the demon beast of tyranny out of its shackles it's nearly impossible to get it back under control. And the damage it does while it rampages across civilization is incalculable. Australia. New Zealand. UK. Germany. Canada. Liberty and freedom are still reeling. Free speech on life support. Surveillance police state infrastructure built out. WHO pandemic treaty threat a knife at the throat of liberty and freedom, more comprehensive, lessons learned from the totalitarian Beta test that they saw the opportunity in Trump's initial ill-advised travel ban gave them. And they seized it. This is what we are up against. May sanity prevail in the next Trump administration with RFK Jr and others inside his administration. For the US. For Australia. For mankind's sake.
Thank you for this, but stating this would not have helped a single person during Covid. I don’t know what would have helped. I don’t even think violence against the individuals engineering, managing, or committing these acts of savagery would have helped - much.
It would have helped if people knew to remove unlawful law manipulators from power. The sooner doctors would have been allowed to communicate openly and honestly, the sooner the pandemic would have been solved.
Rights cannot be revoked by any government only privileges can.
The reason we had issues was because not enough people stood up to the petty tyrants in the police force and in the NHS and in the supermarkets etc etc etc
The police admitted that they had the option not to enforce these arbitrary and abusive rules but most chief of police chose to go along with them and in so doing abandoned their oaths, oaths that Christ stated explicitly they should never have taken in any case, "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no as anything else is of the evil one". As indeed we saw where the British police force committed evil against the British people.
My sister was out for a drive with my neice just after my mother had died, they just wanted to get out of the house she had died in and they turned round after 10 miles or so and started back home when a police car flagged them down and when the cop came to the car he was beaming because he had seen them pass him by and then turn around and come back so he knew they weren't "out on business" so he could cause them as much trouble as possible for daring to ignore "lockdown" and he was absolutely gutted when he found out the reason for them being out not because he gave a damn about them but because he knew no jury in the land would support him screwing them over at such a time. THAT is the British police in a nutshell, .... scum, .... subhuman scum.
Brilliant work, here here. Keep up the fight, we are winning.
I do view our inalienable rights as different and much greater than the human rights given to us by "legislation".
No court or state have any authority to tell us what our rights are.
Our inalienable rights are nothing to do with them.
I agree.
I think the phrase is: “Hear, Hear.”
Otherwise, spot on.
It makes more sense that way, IMHO.
Prove me wrong; I had been puzzled about this phrase until I figured that out.
You learn something new everyday, what a damp squid!
Joking of course, I know it's a sqib but the internet doesn't!
👍❤️thanks
Absolutely! What "they" did was beyond egregious, what was worse imho, however, was how many citizens were more than willing to give up their rights! Succumbed to these violations in the name of the greater good - I lost faith in the strength of humanity during those dark days.
Way back in January, 2020, when the American Civil Liberties Union pretended to care about civil liberties:
What You Need to Know About the Coronavirus Outbreak: A Civil Liberties Perspective
ACLU, January 28, 2020
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-coronavirus-outbreak-a-civil-liberties-perspective
"As scientists and public health officials in the United States learn more about the virus, and as we all see how bad the outbreak turns out to be, it is important that public policymaking remain firmly centered around science.
Unfortunately, our history of reactions to infectious disease outbreaks suggests that if this outbreak becomes severe, we’re likely to see strong pressure to the contrary. In particular, we can expect three things:
We can expect some to panic.
Unfortunately, there tends to be disproportionate hysteria and exaggerated fear around infectious diseases — especially when they are new. In 2009, the appearance of the H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) virus prompted some to call for measures like closing the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormously disruptive measure that, among other things, would have led to billions of dollars in lost economic activity. The H1N1 turned out to be no worse than a normal strain of the seasonal flu virus. In late 2014, many panicked over the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa, including a number of U.S. governors who imposed politically motivated quarantines on health care workers and others returning from West Africa. Those quarantines were completely unjustified by science. (In 2015 the ACLU, the Yale School of Public Health, and Yale Law School released a major report analyzing the response to Ebola.)
...
"...no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do.
We can expect pressure for counterproductive responses.
Most panicky responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts, only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to stopping the spread of communicable disease such as forced treatment and large-scale quarantine are, as three preeminent public health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the spread of disease."
Public panic will predictably spark calls for “tough,” even draconian measures that treat the problem like a law enforcement or national security issue rather than a public health matter. We at the ACLU have always acknowledged that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified. And the public health community has learned over time that treating sick people like potential enemies only spurs them to “go underground” and avoid the authorities, which exacerbates the spread of disease. The evidence is clear that travel bans and quarantines are not the solution. Also counterproductive are the targeting and stigmatization of vulnerable populations, another historically frequent response to frightening epidemics.
We can expect that Trump will lead the panic, not calm it.
In previous disease scares, Donald Trump has been among the most panicky and scientifically ungrounded public voices in the United States. During the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, he opposed allowing American doctors infected with the disease to be airlifted back to the United States for lifesaving treatment (tweeting, “KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE”). He also called for blocking all air traffic from West Africa.
As one expert advised in 2015, “Officials should avoid unrealistic reassurances or taking unnecessarily stringent measures so as to appear decisive.”"
...
"The job of our political leaders is to solicit and follow the guidance of public health experts in crafting a calm and rational response to an outbreak, to help the public understand the scientific facts of this disease, and to present an honest and mature appraisal of risk and the limits of human power to curb nature. Unfortunately, Trump and his administration have a terrible record when it comes to listening to scientists.
We don’t know how bad this outbreak will be. If this one is not severe, another one probably will be in the future. And the more dangerous an actual outbreak, the more important it is that our authorities respond with cool heads and based on science, and not intrude any more than strictly necessary on people’s civil liberties. "
Way back when CNN pretended to care about social and economic tolls on restrictions and quarantines:
The US coronavirus travel ban could backfire. Here’s how
CNN Health, February 7, 2020
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/health/coronavirus-travel-ban/index.html
“All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. “These measures may exacerbate the epidemic’s social and economic tolls. And can make us less safe."
"There can be major economic consequences
One reason countries may be wary of sharing information: the economic consequences of a travel ban can be devastating.
“It has massive economic implications,” Popescu says."
They can't say they didn't know. Or that they forgot, they were doing the best they could in a difficult situation. They knew. And said so. Until they decided to become the threat to civil liberties and freedom, the economy and lives that they said Trump would. They were right when they said Trump was F'ing up. He was, he did. Big time. When the world (including Australia) needed a US president to say "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," or "We will bear any burden, pay any price for the cause of liberty" we had one who said we needed to ban travel and stay home.
And when he did all of the little tyrants inside nearly every single leader in the once "free" westernized liberal democracies showed their true colors. They decided they'd see his F up...and raise him. They pushed all in on all the tyranny they said Trump would. Which is the only reason that our memory of his handling of plandemic is more favorable for him than our memory of them. Once you let the demon beast of tyranny out of its shackles it's nearly impossible to get it back under control. And the damage it does while it rampages across civilization is incalculable. Australia. New Zealand. UK. Germany. Canada. Liberty and freedom are still reeling. Free speech on life support. Surveillance police state infrastructure built out. WHO pandemic treaty threat a knife at the throat of liberty and freedom, more comprehensive, lessons learned from the totalitarian Beta test that they saw the opportunity in Trump's initial ill-advised travel ban gave them. And they seized it. This is what we are up against. May sanity prevail in the next Trump administration with RFK Jr and others inside his administration. For the US. For Australia. For mankind's sake.
Thank you for this, but stating this would not have helped a single person during Covid. I don’t know what would have helped. I don’t even think violence against the individuals engineering, managing, or committing these acts of savagery would have helped - much.
It would have helped if people knew to remove unlawful law manipulators from power. The sooner doctors would have been allowed to communicate openly and honestly, the sooner the pandemic would have been solved.
Rights cannot be revoked by any government only privileges can.
The reason we had issues was because not enough people stood up to the petty tyrants in the police force and in the NHS and in the supermarkets etc etc etc
The police admitted that they had the option not to enforce these arbitrary and abusive rules but most chief of police chose to go along with them and in so doing abandoned their oaths, oaths that Christ stated explicitly they should never have taken in any case, "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no as anything else is of the evil one". As indeed we saw where the British police force committed evil against the British people.
My sister was out for a drive with my neice just after my mother had died, they just wanted to get out of the house she had died in and they turned round after 10 miles or so and started back home when a police car flagged them down and when the cop came to the car he was beaming because he had seen them pass him by and then turn around and come back so he knew they weren't "out on business" so he could cause them as much trouble as possible for daring to ignore "lockdown" and he was absolutely gutted when he found out the reason for them being out not because he gave a damn about them but because he knew no jury in the land would support him screwing them over at such a time. THAT is the British police in a nutshell, .... scum, .... subhuman scum.