Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[birdup.snaildown]

ITT: proof that Trump is not responsible for America's utter COVID failure.
ITT: proof that you are all responsible.

You want to believe that lock-down doesn't work, because you care more about fundamentally and stubbornly defending your personal freedoms than protecting the lives of the elderly and the vulnerable citizens of your country.

 

[JGrimez]

Can we just remember the fact that the lockdowns were originally justified due to blatantly incorrect modeling? Prof Neil Ferguson from Imperial College later stepped down for violating his own social rules).

So the question is why would they source someone so incompetent to justify rules that would fundamentally alter global society? Oops.....
What's more likely (and incredibly difficult for some people to accept) is that the modeling was purposefully incorrect in order to frighten people and justify lockdowns.

"2 weeks to flatten the curve" is now "we're not seeing the same level of death, but these dodgy PCR tests are showing traces of the virus in mostly asymptomatic people so that means we need to continue lockdowns, mask-wearing and distancing indefinitely".

Funny again how the original proponents of lockdowns were completely wrong in everything that they've said but the conspiracy theorists have been remarkably prescient.

The answer is it's easier to think and use common sense when you don't blindly trust what governments say and exhibit a bit of skepticism.

It also helps to admit when you're wrong.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

The answer is it's easier to think and use common sense when you don't blindly trust what governments say and exhibit a bit of skepticism.

It also helps to admit when you're wrong.

I can prove that your statement is false by preparing graphs using data from over fifty countries, but why go to all that effort when you're not going to listen to me?

You are intent on believing what you want to believe. I've already been through this on Facebook with people in my life that remind me of you. I did it for months, over and over again. But it didn't matter how much data I presented, they always found a way to remain blind to the truth.

Masks obviously help prevent the spread of viruses. Not just the China viruses but all airborne viruses. It's just basic common sense. You might as well argue that condoms do nothing to prevent the transmission of sexual diseases or that mosquito nets are 100% ineffective against malaria.

The data is very clear. It is not my responsibility to prove it to you. If you want to know the truth, do a bit of research.

Social distancing again is just basic logic. Lock-downs even more so.

The people arguing about the impact on the economy, they aren't crazy. Those arguing about suicide rates and decreased cancer detection, etc. These are valid arguments. I don't agree with them, but I could be wrong.

I went through a hard lock-down, so I get the inconvenience / human rights argument also. I personally am happy (more or less) to have my freedoms restricted in order to save some lives, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we didn't save any lives.

Your argument, however, is insane.

 

[AutoTripper]

You like numbers.....the annual death rate in a population is roughly 1.4% per year, which is one in 70 dead every single year. Corona has been around in NJ for about 1 year so one in 500 is 1/7th of the total deaths.
That implies all those deaths were actually from Covid, however nowhere near all the NJ deaths assigned to covid are actually deaths from nCoV infection sequelae.
The other number you might like is one in 60 people admitted to hospital leave via the morgue even in the best of times.

NJ and NY really fucked up their initial handling of the virus, that is not in dispute, they knowingly shipped infected people into vulnerable cohorts. They aggressively ventilated weak and vulnerable patients, the rest was inevitable.

Arguing raw mortality per capita is weak justification for lockdown, the demographics and population densities in these countries are not the same the health care provision is not the same. People want simple narratives and headlines but there always many more confounders than the simple story allows for. South Korea for example has a health care system that is far more capable than the New Zealand, but they did not implement a harsh lockdown as you claim. If lockdown was as effective as you claim then there would be clear inflection signals in the curve of infections after lockdowns were introduced in various countries, there is not, indeed most lockdowns can travel back in time and cause inflection before they are implemented, this defies all known epidemiological and scientific principles.

There are a lot of conditions that coronavirus seems to have cured. during the first wave there were declines in cardio mortality, declines in renal declines in cancer deaths, Occam says given coronavirus does not cure cancer or strokes or renal failure then some these deaths must have been tagged as corona deaths. In the UK there are 50k cancer diagnoses that are missing, an increased proportion of these people will be condemnded to now die. This is entirely due to the hyperfocus on nCoV.

We are in a dangerous new world, where decrees to restrict the liberty of people are made on the basis of fear mongering models pushed by unaccountable technocrats and poor science.

The restrictions disproportionately hit people who do are not infected more than the tiny number who are.
They are fundamentally unlawful because whilst certain freedoms can be conditionally limited in extreme circumstances the test is whether the restriction passes the test of proportionality and is reasonable. Restricting liberties when there is no reason to believe the majority of people restricted are anything other than healthy is both unreasonable and disproportionate and as a consequence unlawful. The government does not have the right to infringe liberties when this simple test of reasonableness and proportionality is not met.
Quarantine is restricting the liberty of people who are diagnosed infectious and infected with a contagious illness, in order to prevent transmission, tyranny is arbitrarily restricting the liberty of people who have not been diagnosed.
The argument about whether any of the response is proportionate when the overall IFR is so low, stands too, we did not do this with influenza so why is it proportionate and reasonable to start now? The medical profession are getting seriously hacked off with all of this, they are being prevented from doing their jobs which is helping all patients not just those tagged with the disease of the day.

I suppose looking out from middle earth you see one perspective, I was talking to some NZ friends last weekend who were convinced that corona was the end of times virus with exactly the same talking points you rolled out.

If people are fearful then isolate and await the vaccine knight in shining armor, respect other people and leave everyone else to make their own decisions based on their own judgement of their risk and those of those they care about.

I'm with much of what you say bro. It really is crazy to me, how all of a sudden in UK, it is officially ILLEGAL to have my close friend visit, and sit- distance apart, in my back garden!

With massive PR encouragement to get everybody grassing everybody up.

The police have been regularly in my town, Bedford, and more importantly with right to do so.....to search the house for other people!

How the HECK did we get switched into that sort of level of state dictatorship, state control?

It's a £200 fine 1st "offence"-lmfao! Doubling up to £6.5006

Whatever the case at hand, aggressively inforcing laws to keep us all apart-friends and families essentially.... this has serious ramifications.

 

[JessFR]

I know it might seem hard to believe, but there have actually been pandemics before. Epidemics in particular used to he a much bigger problem.

As a result, almost none of the measures being used to fight covid19 are unprecedented.

So when you think that this is some huge unheard of power grab, it might be worth researching the history of epidemic response through the last 400ish years.

Id argue one thing that has changed is that people's expectations of their personal freedoms have significantly increased. Which is normally a good thing. Just not in unusual circumstances like these.

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm with much of what you say bro. It really is crazy to me, how all of a sudden in UK, it is officially ILLEGAL to have my close friend visit, and sit- distance apart, in my back garden!

With massive PR encouragement to get everybody grassing everybody up.

The police have been regularly in my town, Bedford, and more importantly with right to do so.....to search the house for other people!

How the HECK did we get switched into that sort of level of state dictatorship, state control?

That is pretty fucked up, I'm glad we're not doing it like that

 

[JGrimez]

I can prove that your statement is false by preparing graphs using data from over fifty countries, but why go to all that effort when you're not going to listen to me?

You are intent on believing what you want to believe. I've already been through this on Facebook with people in my life that remind me of you. I did it for months, over and over again. But it didn't matter how much data I presented, they always found a way to remain blind to the truth.

Masks obviously help prevent the spread of viruses. Not just the China viruses but all airborne viruses. It's just basic common sense. You might as well argue that condoms do nothing to prevent the transmission of sexual diseases or that mosquito nets are 100% ineffective against malaria.

The data is very clear. It is not my responsibility to prove it to you. If you want to know the truth, do a bit of research.

Social distancing again is just basic logic. Lock-downs even more so.

The people arguing about the impact on the economy, they aren't crazy. Those arguing about suicide rates and decreased cancer detection, etc. These are valid arguments. I don't agree with them, but I could be wrong.

I went through a hard lock-down, so I get the inconvenience / human rights argument also. I personally am happy (more or less) to have my freedoms restricted in order to save some lives, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we didn't save any lives.

Your argument, however, is insane.

You can't disprove the fact the justifications for the lockdowns originally we based on flawed, incorrect (and arguably, purposefully deceptive) modelling.
If the data presented at the time was accurate (as it should've been) then there wouldn't have been the requisite fear and fake evidence to enact lockdowns - this is a big deal as it illustrates that they should never have been implemented.
I don't expect you to address this as it basically invalidates lockdowns which you continue to support.

Something else worth noting is that the elites who are telling you to follow directions are not following the same rules themselves. Either they're lying to you or you're trusting the words of people who don't care about killing your grandma. Which is it?

"Common sense" is looking at the decades of science regarding masks which disproves what you're claiming: The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses "The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled..."

If you consider reality insane then it is you who has the cognitive issues.
I know it's hard to accept that governments would be willing or able to lie to the global population on such a massive scale, but the reality of this is becoming more apparent by the day - IF you're willing to objectively assess evidence and be honest with yourself. I get that it's scary but the quicker we all accept what's going on the quicker we can demand our rights back and hopefully go back to "normal". Because if you think that just doing every ridiculous thing the government tells you will take us back to normal - then you've got another thing coming.

I mean c'mon, look at how nonsensical, contradictory and plain ridiculous some of these new "rules" are.
And they're not even properly legislated they're just pushed through by national leaders.
It doesn't take a genius to wake up and realize we're being duped.

 

[JGrimez]

As a result, almost none of the measures being used to fight covid19 are unprecedented.

This is blatantly and obviously false.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - such as being completely fine with governments locking up healthy people and taking away some of their basic human rights.

In South Australia, 4 infant babies died after they were refused interstate travel to Melbourne who have more advanced medical facilities.
Tell me with a straight face how that rule regarding state border closures is doing what's best for public health.

Also recently in QLD we had tens of thousands of people packed tightly together in grand finals for sporting events - yet at the same the time the QLD Premier did not allow a lone girl from New South Wales to travel north across the border to attend the funeral of her father.

If you're OK with these things happening or can somehow justify them by "trusting the directives of the government" then you have literally been brainwashed. There's no other way to describe this lack of critical thinking.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

You can't disprove the fact the justifications for the lockdowns originally we based on flawed, incorrect (and arguably, purposefully deceptive) modelling.

All modelling was incorrect initially.

If the data presented at the time was accurate (as it should've been)

In most parts of the world, they can't even predict the weather accurately for a 72 hour period. All predictions have low medium and high estimates. Climate change is a great example. We know things are getting worse, but we don't have precise numbers because we are not psychic and there are always going to be limitations when it comes to predictive modelling.

I don't expect you to address this as it basically invalidates lockdowns which you continue to support.

It doesn't invalidate lock-downs. Your statements don't even make sense. The "data presented at the time"? At what time? Lock-downs have been enforced at different times by different countries and influenced by different models. What you're saying, again, is nonsensical. If you were talking about a particular country, it might make sense... but you're making broad blanket statements. I'm not sure what modelling you're talking about or what country or what month?

Something else worth noting is that the elites who are telling you to follow directions are not following the same rules themselves.

Again, blanket statements as if every government in the world is conspiring together against us. Did Jacinda Ardern not follow her own guidelines? What about Daniel Andrews? Who are you talking about? "The elites" doesn't mean anything. Be specific. Cite examples.

"Common sense" is looking at the decades of science regarding masks which disproves what you're claiming: The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses "The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled..."

I work in the healthcare industry. The vast majority of doctors - worldwide - disagree with you. You can always find some crackpot on the internet that goes against the scientific consensus. Some scientists disagree with climate change. There are scientists that think the world is flat. You are cherry picking again. You are finding sources to back up your opinion, rather than researching indiscriminately with an open mind.

If you consider reality insane then it is you who has the cognitive issues.

You are not engaging with reality.

I know it's hard to accept that governments would be willing or able to lie to the global population on such a massive scale

So are governments doing this independently or is there a conspiracy?
Are they knowingly lying to us? If so: why are they doing it?

If you think they're wrong, that's one thing, but to suggest there is a worldwide conspiracy makes you sound like a crackpot.

I get that it's scary but the quicker we all accept what's going on the quicker we can demand our rights back and hopefully go back to "normal".

Life in NZ has been back to normal since April.

I mean c'mon, look at how nonsensical, contradictory and plain ridiculous some of these new "rules" are. And they're not even properly legislated they're just pushed through by national leaders. It doesn't take a genius to wake up and realize we're being duped.

Which rules are nonsensical?
Which rules are contradictory?

I'm not sure what country you live in. I assume you're American?

 

[JGrimez]

I don't know how to separate quotes with this new layout so I'm not going to reply individually as I normally would.

You can always find some crackpot on the internet that goes against the scientific consensus.

- I posted the science. The mainstream establishment are currently ignoring decades of science in order to implement nonsensical rules. This is what is difficult to accept for most people.

With regards to governments, what this shows is that national leaders are acting on directions from a central (and seemingly hidden) authority. One example is the Danish PM saying that "authorities" told her to introduce lockdowns but the Danish Health Authority stated that they never gave this suggestion. So the question is which "authority" are leaders listening to? Because if you look at it objectively - many leaders around the world are making decisions that are basically political suicide - and directly against the best interests of their citizens. So yes the crazy conspiracy theory about a "one world government" is now coming out into the open and displaying itself. I have to say it's pretty impressive how they've been able to completely destroy western nations while convincing the majority of citizens there that it's in their best interests or for their safety.

What I think is there are some even more massive changes afoot in our global society - and national leaders have been promised protection if they just go along with what they're told.

Belarusian President Lukashenko Says IMF Offered A Billion USD Bribe to Impose Covid-19 Lockdown

Which rules are nonsensical?
Which rules are contradictory?

I just outlined 2 glaring examples in the post that you responded to.
There are countless more.
If you've been following along closely and haven't been surprised or puzzled by some of the new restrictions around the world - then there's nothing I can say to awaken you.

I'm not sure what country you live in. I assume you're American?

I'm a US citizen living in Australia - which is now a penal colony as Australians aren't allowed to leave the country without a good reason (another nonsensical rule).

 

[JGrimez]

Also just on the dodgy modeling which justified the lockdowns. I don't think you truly understand the gravity of what occurred.

Bad coding: Code review of Neil Ferguson's model

There's a difference between good models being slightly incorrect - and then simply having bad code leading to ridiculous conclusions.

 

[JGrimez]

EXCLUSIVE: 'Sexiest doctor alive' is called out for partying maskless on a boat while surrounded by bikini-clad women in Miami, despite stressing to his millions of Instagram followers to think before traveling, wear a mask and social distance

• Mikhail Varshavski, who has found fame as Dr. Mike, has been in the vanguard of stressing the importance of wearing a mask to stop the spread of Covid-19
• But the 'Hot Doctor' has come under fire from his followers after pictures emerged of him ignoring his own advice by partying maskless on his birthday
• The 31-year-old flew from New York City to Miami to celebrate earlier this month
• He's seen on a boat in Sunset Harbor surrounded by 14 other people — most of them bikini-clad women
• Varshavski is also seen working on one of the women’s necks while in bathing trunks
• The Instagram famous doctor has become a regular as a medical expert on television, especially during the COVID pandemic
• In July he told Maria Bartiroma on Fox Business: ‘So please, if you’re going outside in public and are going to be around other people, wear a mask'
• The picture from his party showed people crowded together despite his public pleas for social distancing
• ‘Social distancing is incredibly important. That’s how we control the spread of this virus,’ he said during a YouTube interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci
• Varshavski has built up a huge following since a picture of him with his husky Roxy went viral
• People magazine named him the ‘Sexiest Doctor Alive’ in 2015

Do as I say - not as I do.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I posted the science... Danish PM says "authority"... one world government... elite Instagram doctors

You convinced me!
How can I argue with a story about the sexiest doctor alive?

I just outlined 2 glaring examples in the post that you responded to.

I didn't see the QLD border stuff until just now. I was responding to your other post.

Both of your examples are related to Australian border closures, not social distancing/masks/lock-downs which is what we were discussing... but I don't agree with the QLD Premier's attitude towards keeping borders closed. There have certainly been some mistakes made and some rules I disagree with. The South Australia situation (I hadn't heard of it before) is particularly unfortunate.

Some of the rules are too strict and badly conceived. The extreme nature of the Victorian Stage 4 lock-down shocked me at first, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense. Obviously there were oversights and as you've pointed out they probably resulted in some deaths. I'm sure there have also been some suicides, but the jury is out (for the moment) on whether or not Australia is better off with or without lock-down.

Regardless this statement is still insane:

Social distancing, masks and lockdowns have been proven to have little or no impact on viral spread.

If the word no wasn't in there, I wouldn't use the word insane. It would still be demonstrably wrong to broadly say that masks, social distancing and lock-downs have little impact on viral spread. But no impact? That's crazy.

 

[JGrimez]

If you disagree then prove otherwise.
The worst countries hit all locked down.
The mask thing I already provided decades of scientific evidence. The science on masks hasn't changed this year.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I'm confused, I thought they were wanting to defund the police? But now we're supposed to call the cops on people celebrating thanksgiving? Wtg Kate.​

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown Encourages Citizens To Call Police On People Violating COVID-19 Shutdown Orders During Thanksgiving​

Gabrielle Temaat Contributor
November 23, 2020 11:27 AM ET

Democratic Oregon Gov. Kate Brown claimed that residents should call police on people violating the new COVID-19 restrictions in an interview Friday.

“This is no different than what happens if there’s a party down the street and it’s keeping everyone awake,” Brown said, according to Fox News. “What do neighbors do [in that case]? They call law enforcement because it’s too noisy. This is just like that. It’s like a violation of a noise ordinance.”

Brown recently ordered a two-week shutdown limiting gatherings to no more than six people from a maximum of two households. Those who violate the ordinance could face 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,250, The Oregonian reported.

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan responded to Oregon’s lockdown by alleging that rioting and looting were permissible in the state while large family gatherings were not.

Newly-elected Clackamas County Chairwoman Tootie Smith reportedly wrote in a Facebook post that she planned to violate the governor’s orders by celebrating “Thanksgiving with as many family and friends” as she can find. She also claimed that “Gov. Brown is wrong to order otherwise.”

The governor also announced that she would take “stronger legal action as appropriate,” and that she is already working with state police to enforce the social gathering restrictions, according to The Oregonian.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown Encourages Citizens To Call Police On People Violating COVID-19 Shutdown Orders During Thanksgiving

Oregon democrat Gov. Kate Brown claimed that residents should call police on people violating the new COVID restrictions in an interview Friday.

dailycaller.com

 

[novaveritas]

Nobody can prove what will happen in the future. As I said, you might be right. The current data doesn't show that you are, but that might be because the current data can't tell us what is going to happen long term. You are insisting that you are correct. I am saying, you might be correct but we will have to wait and see. I can prove that it helps short term. You can't prove that it does more harm long term, yet. Time will tell.



Yes, it does.



What you are requesting is impossible. See above.

There is a general principle of law say that there are certain rights and freedoms which shall not be infringed except in certain restricted situations and only in limited ways. The reason for that is preventing governments and their statist lackeys from arbitrarily abusing power. The limitation of the protected right must be one that it was reasonable for the legislature to impose. That is it. As we gather more evidence and understanding it must remain reasonable, something that may have been more reasonable early on in the absence of knowledge becomes less reasonable the more we know. lets test the reasonableness.

In order to be reasonable the measure must be reasonably be expected to work and any science relied on must also be reasonable and sound, therein lies the problem, the science claiming efficacy for lockdown and NPIs is weak and the linchpin science, the modeling from Imperial College and others is beyond flawed. You claim to be able to prove that lockdown works short term. I put you to proof as the burden is clearly on you to show right now the reasonableness of lockdown.

If you are wrong or I am wrong in the long term, let history be the judge of that. I can live with my conscience, can you?

The logical rational position is do not break stuff that doesn't need to be broken. Do not hurt people unnecessarily, do not interrupt the lives of children, do not create a fearful dystopia, do not hyperfocus on corona, do not unnecessarily restrict medical care of people without corona. In healthcare and if you are patient facing in any country you know this is the reality of what is going on.

The reaction to this virus is the liberty equivalent of a cytokine storm, the harms are clear. so far the temporary, to flatten the curve lockdowns, and other temporary measures have already disrupted 1/80 of everyone'sa lives. Some people will have most of their remaining life disrupted by arbitrary law, they will die not being able to see their loved ones, that choice is not one the government has the right to make for them.

Politicians ran for cover in the face of manipulated public panic and now it is practically impossible to walk it back without admitting it was a misguided over reaction. I don't want to play the blame game, the governments got it wrong they are human, those that shriek for more government response bear responsibility too. If in doubt, stop.

People go mad in crowds but return to sanity individually.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance

 

[birdup.snaildown]

There is a general principle of law say that there are certain rights and freedoms which shall not be infringed except in certain restricted situations and only in limited ways. The reason for that is preventing governments and their statist lackeys from arbitrarily abusing power. The limitation of the protected right must be one that it was reasonable for the legislature to impose. That is it. As we gather more evidence and understanding it must remain reasonable, something that may have been more reasonable early on in the absence of knowledge becomes less reasonable the more we know. lets test the reasonableness.

In order to be reasonable the measure must be reasonably be expected to work and any science relied on must also be reasonable and sound, therein lies the problem, the science claiming efficacy for lockdown and NPIs is weak and the linchpin science, the modeling from Imperial College and others is beyond flawed. You claim to be able to prove that lockdown works short term. I put you to proof as the burden is clearly on you to show right now the reasonableness of lockdown.

If you are wrong or I am wrong in the long term, let history be the judge of that. I can live with my conscience, can you?

The logical rational position is do not break stuff that doesn't need to be broken. Do not hurt people unnecessarily, do not interrupt the lives of children, do not create a fearful dystopia, do not hyperfocus on corona, do not unnecessarily restrict medical care of people without corona. In healthcare and if you are patient facing in any country you know this is the reality of what is going on.

The reaction to this virus is the liberty equivalent of a cytokine storm, the harms are clear. so far the temporary, to flatten the curve lockdowns, and other temporary measures have already disrupted 1/80 of everyone'sa lives. Some people will have most of their remaining life disrupted by arbitrary law, they will die not being able to see their loved ones, that choice is not one the government has the right to make for them.

Politicians ran for cover in the face of manipulated public panic and now it is practically impossible to walk it back without admitting it was a misguided over reaction. I don't want to play the blame game, the governments got it wrong they are human, those that shriek for more government response bear responsibility too. If in doubt, stop.

People go mad in crowds but return to sanity individually.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance

I'm just going to repeat what I've already said. New Zealand is proof that well implemented hard lock-downs work. There are many other countries that prove this also, including: Japan, South Korea, China & Australia.

I cannot prove anything about the long term effects of lock-downs because we won't have that data until next year, but currently there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) of significantly increased suicide rates or a high level of excess deaths in these countries. The burden of proof is on you, because you made these statements as if they are fact.

Also, as I've already said, the economies in countries that have contained the virus are doing the same (or better) than the countries that failed to contain it.

I couldn't be bothered compiling data for you because I don't think you're going to listen.

Here is an article you might find interesting:

6 countries, 6 curves: how nations that moved fast against COVID-19 avoided disaster

Countries aiming to flatten the coronavirus curve have one crucial aim: reduce the “effective reproduction number” of the virus to below 1. This means the spread is slowing, rather than accelerating.

theconversation.com

If you are wrong or I am wrong in the long term, let history be the judge of that. I can live with my conscience, can you?

I don't know what that means?

I'm not making decisions (for any country) and presumably neither are you, so I don't see how conscience has anything to do with it. This is just a discussion. Whether or not either of us are wrong has zero bearing on the situation.

 

[novaveritas]

I don't know what that means?

I'm not making decisions (for any country) and presumably neither are you, so I don't see how conscience has anything to do with it. This is just a discussion. Whether or not either of us are wrong has zero bearing on the situation

You are cheerleading for something that clearly causes harm, and you admit you don't know what the relative magnitude of those harms are. That is where your conscience needs to kick in. You have a responsibilty to do what you believe is right, to do no harm and to wash your hands of this responsibility, to absolve yourself of blame and defer mindlessly to the judgement government makes you subject to the judgement of history.

That is what conscience is. If you go with the fearful flow then you are not accepting your individual responsibilities to question, to hold those in power to account, you have been assimilated into the borg to use a star trek analogy. If you are willing to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of security then you deserve neither liberty nor security.

In a decades or so we will look back on these times and ask did we do all in our power to prevent harm and to do the right thing, as is our duty to ourselves and to humanity. I can truthfully answer yes, I looked at this very hard, came to my own early conclusions based on science and most of those conclusions have proven to be mostly correct, I have made mistakes I am probably making further mistakes now but I see and recognise the complexity, but I put my money where my mouth was and have always acted in good faith. Primum non nocere. That is why my conscience is clear, how about you?

You and the government do not have the right to chose who lives and who dies especially in such an irrational and arbitrary way.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

You see what you want to see.
My conscience is crystal.

 

[JGrimez]

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." -- Carl Sagan