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!

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.