Tag: corona

Lunacy – part 2

Posted on by gotthepatter

Today, Thursday 25th June 2020, there was a hearing on the application for an injunction against the government by the ‘virus mania’ group. It was broadcast live online and I caught part of it. I heard the last 15 minutes of the plaintiff’s case and the rest of the proceedings.

The two main figures behind the virus mania group led the challenge, and appeared to do so in a far from polished performance. Towards the end they demonstrated behaviour reminiscent of a spoilt child – not to put too fine a point on it – and concluded by invoking their right to substitution on the grounds of bias.

They challenged the government’s use of ‘measures’ on the grounds that they were undemocratic and had unproven value, yet apart from the closure of schools, all the other measures had been advice on the part of the government, albeit backed by powers enabling the police to enforce them and prosecute or issue fines to those ignoring the rules.

The defence made a good point in stating that the request for the injunction failed to demonstrate which constitutional rights had been infringed by which measures. Even I could see that sweeping statements by the plaintiffs were not going to win them their injunction request.

I am forced into the conclusion that they knew this already. They could have prepared their arguments with concrete examples but they did not. What they achieved was simply publicity. Publicity for what? I am somewhat afraid that when you compare their performance in court with the level necessary to challenge the State, their only motive was to fuel anarchism.

The government has done its best to issue rules and advice for the whole nation in order to mitigate the threat posed by the corona virus. It may be that they overreacted on certain points and erred on the side of caution, but the Virus Mania group did not focus on any specific points. Instead, all they wanted to do was split public opinion, and thus the consential basis for the measures.

In my book that is a cheap attack on the government of the nation whose only demonstrable aim has been to reduce the effects of the pandemic in this country.

As I write this, the courts first have to decide on the motion for substitution, before the whole three-ringed circus begins again. In my opinion this is a misuse of the court system, although I would still rather see such nonsense played out in court than on the streets.

To be continued!

Lunacy?

Posted on by gotthepatter

There is a movement in the Netherlands with a name that roughly translates as ‘virus mania’. They basically proclaim that all corona measures are unnecessary and should cease immediately. They even suggest that our basic human rights are being infringed.

They suggest that the corona pandemic is nothing worse than a normal mild flu pandemic.

It will come as no surprise to those that know me that I strongly disagree with their conclusions. They are based on an agenda of political opposition – surprise, surprise.

Whilst I accept that the science is not yet completely clear, that in itself is hardly surprising with this variant of the corona virus which was completely unknown until the turn of the year and most certainly behaves differently to other pandemic viruses in the past. The after effects of a Covid-19 illness are also more severe than from the flu.

To advocate the cessation of all measures is entirely reckless and fills me with fear. Whilst the measures may yet prove to have been over-cautious, pretending no measures are necessary is irresponsible.

Avoiding physical contact with others when we do not know if they might be carrying the infection, and keeping a respectful distance so that we don’t breath in the infected droplets others are breathing out is the basis of keeping this virus at bay. It is common sense.

Lockdown, in a sensible and proportionate form, is a sensible policy. The term ‘lockdown’ is unfortunate since it has connotations of prison and curfew. The Dutch government’s attempt to temper the expression by calling it an ‘intelligent lockdown hasn’t really had much effect.

Social distancing is sensible, although I respect the right of those who choose to ignore it. However, in doing so, they are increasing the risks for those more vulnerable to the consequences of Covid-19 such as myself. Doctors have already discovered that around a third of corona ICU patients have sustained permanent lung damage as a result of the virus and

For a government trying to navigate a country through the perils of a pandemic, it isn’t a question of following a map with clearly defined coordinates but more like trying to steer a raft on a stretch of wild water.

With that in mind I will publish this post and work on part 2 which comments on the hearing held today for an injunction.

It’s not fair!

Posted on by gotthepatter

These are unprecedented times – we all know that. Governments in various countries have had to improvise in order to put rules and guidelines in place designed to slow the spread and effect of the corona virus.

Social distancing is one of those measures, and rules about congregating in the open. There are fines payable if such rules are disregarded. In each country, the legal mechanism enabling this is different, of course, and depending on the country and its policing methods, such a fine may or may not be the ultimate sanction.

Let’s be clear – these rules are intended for all our benefit, to slow and stop the progress of what can be a deadly pandemic virus. New Zealand has just announced they are able to lift the restrictions because the measures have worked.

Here in the Netherlands more and more people are ignoring the letter of the rules. You can see it in the streets where it is clear that groups of people that do not live in the same household congregate and chat without remaining 1,5 meter distancing. Demonstrations in the wake of the death in Minneapolis of a black man who was pinned to the ground by his neck for more than 8 minutes by a white policeman have also led to situations where large groups of people have not maintained social distancing.

What I find more disturbing are the attempts to have fines declared void because the powers that be are not applying sanctions equitably across the board. This is like requesting a speeding fine being voided because there were other drivers breaking the limit who were not caught and fined.

As a kid I was often reminded of the maxim ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. There may be mathematical or juridical ways to disprove that maxim but any attempt to escape prosecution on those grounds is in my view morally wrong and an affront to those who do stick to the rules.

The Dutch mentality is grounded on the establishment of rules and the tacit agreement that ultimately they have to be respected. However, there is also a deep sense that rules are fine ‘as long as they don’t apply to me.’

In the case of the special rules put in place to help safeguard the most vulnerable against the possibly severe consequences of Covid-19, it is disheartening to see others disregard them. Those we see from afar congregating in the streets or attending demonstrations may well be the people serving us in shops when we next have to buy in vital supplies, or at least part of the same household.

I find that worrying.

When will we be ‘safe’ from corona?

Posted on by gotthepatter

As of June 2020, the only safety measures available to those considered vulnerable are social distancing coupled with restraint as far as venturing outside the home is concerned.

The big question is when there will be a medical solution available to protect us.

The best available answers do not make for good reading.

There are three avenues being pursued. The first is the re-purposing of existing vaccines, modified to ‘code’ the corona virus. There are trials taking place in, amongst other places, Oxford, England. There are indications that they may have an effective artificial vaccine by the end of the summer 2020.

Antibody infusions may be possible by the end of this year, but that is perhaps optimistic.

A proper vaccine will take most of next year to bring on to the market. In other words, not even in time for inclusion in the flu-jab 2021.

At the moment where I live, around 1 in 400 people are currently infected with the corona virus. If you come in contact with one of those people, and they cough or sneeze anywhere near you, you may pick up the virus. It may take until the end of 2021 – next year – before you can reasonably and effectively protect yourself against infection.

In anyone’s book, that’s a long time to hold your breath!

I am one of those people that likes to visualise how much longer something will last. The lockdown has lasted for 2,5 months so far. In those terms, we are probably not even half way towards the possible introduction of an artificial vaccine, and only a quarter of the way towards the possible introduction of antibody infusions. We will have to wait 9 or 10 times longer than we have already spent in lockdown before a vaccine is available.

The other thing we cannot forget is that although these medical interventions will not be introduced until it has been demonstrated that they work, the one piece of information we will not yet have is for how long vaccinations or antibody treatments provide protection. Such information is only available retrospectively; it cannot be predicted in the case of a virus that was not even known about until the end of last year.

Will we need an annual booster? Or possibly every 6 months? Hopefully at the most once a year – that at least would work with the current annual flu jab.

What I have noticed is that in order to keep up to date with the different developments it is necessary to actively look for the information. The media has already started scaling back its reporting, but fortunately we live in an age where searching the internet is easy.

For those of us who know that will almost certainly suffer complications following a corona infection, keeping abreast of the news, including how people around us are sticking to the rules, is important. The consequences of the measures needed to try and avoid infection will be with us for a period of years, not just months. In some respects, it remains necessary that the casualty figures and analyses constantly figure in the news. It is only when people are reminded that corona has not yet been beaten that the necessity of social distancing can be impressed on society as a whole.