CPH-Flyer

Which section of what human rights convention would be violated by a lockdown?

js1993

I vaguely recall something about "freedom of assembly" in the U.S. Constitution, but during Covid, it only applied to George Floyd protesters and Antifa hooligans.

RedChili

While I would like to write personal replies to all your comments, unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that. Instead, I'll just ask the question: Why aren't people focused on why we got lockdowns in the first place?

Historically, all "experts" agreed that lockdown did nothing good to stop a pandemic. When the EU countries prepared their pandemic plans (I believe it was 2005-2013), not a single country included a lockdown in their plans.

When covid broke out in Wuhan, the Chinese Communist party decided to implement a lockdown, because they had previously used lockdowns successfully to fight the Uighur democracy movement. The police went so far as nailing the doors of Wuhan residents. People were literally imprisoned in their own homes. After a month, the Communist party declared victory over covid.

(We now know that the Chinese "victory" was only temporary. After two and a half years of fighting every single covid outbreak with hard lockdowns, the people finally rebelled in the fall of 2022. And when the Communist party relented and opened society, the inevitable mass transmission and deaths happened.)

And then when covid hit Italy, and a lot of people were dying horrible deaths in hospitals (they probably didn't die due to covid, but due to a combination of ventilators and multi resistant bacteria), Italy's PM Conte (a fan of China) decided to apply the Chinese method in Italy. Of course, his lockdown failed to stop any transmission at all.

At the same time, the Imperial College with Neil Ferguson published their study which showed that 500,000 people would die in the UK, two million in the USA, and 100,000 in Sweden within three months without a lockdown. What they didn't say openly was that these numbers were what they considered to be a "reasonable worst-case scenario," and that "reasonable" in their language meant a chance of one in 20,000.

With the Imperial College study, politicians all over the world panicked and imitated the Chinese Communist party's lockdown policies, and most countries closed their borders. Many of the world's leading epidemiologists lamented their decisions and issued the Great Barrington Declaration, where they pleaded with the countries to stay open and to actually follow their pandemic plans, but their call fell on deaf ears.

Even worse, both leaders and journalists and regular people had an extreme case of tunnel vision and were only focusing on lockdowns, ventilators (that had a 97% death rate), and vaccines.

What health officials and politicians instead should have focused on, were methods that actually kill viruses, and early treatment. There are plenty of nasal sprays and mouth gargle solutions that kill all viruses. Moreover, those doctors that actually used early treatment, such as Dr. Shankara Chetty and others, had a near 100% success rate. (Last time I listened to an interview with Dr. Chetty, he had treated 8,000 covid patients, with not a single death.)

With the "successful" lockdowns now behind us, we're unfortunately in this situation that tyrannically inclined Western leaders are talking about using lockdowns to also fight "climate change," and in the United Kingdom, we've got the development of 15-minute cities, that essentially are permanent lockdown cities. Unfortunately, it appears that we're heading towards a future of lockdowns, "for our own good."

RedChili

All lockdowns were different, so it depends on which country's lockdown you're talking about. But generally speaking, here are some articles from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that were violated:

The most obvious:

3. The right to liberty.
13. Freedom of movement and residence within the borders of your state.
18. Freedom of religion, either alone or in community with others and in public or private.
20. Freedom of peaceful assembly.
23. The right to work, free choice of employment.
26. The right to education.
27. The right to participate in cultural life of the community.

Other possible violations:

7. All are equal before the law.
12. Arbitrary interference against his privacy, family, home.
19. Seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.
21. Equal access to public service.
25. Access to medical care.

fransknorge

Great example of Brandolini’s law ! A refutation of this pile of horse manure would take 10 times the amount it took to write this piece of fiction in the first place. Just an example with this sentence, I love how you, who have never seen a dead body from COVID, knows better than all pathologist, virologist, and doctors combined.
Did you miss the phone call from the Nobel committee for your prize in Medicine ?

tom tulpe

Well, have you done your research?

RedChili

I'm not sure how to react to this post. It appears to me that you're under the failed impression that all pathologists, virologists, and doctors in the world are in complete agreement about this question. That is certainly not the case.

I've spent a lot of time listening to and reading things written by doctors during the past four years, and this is definitely a situation where you have to choose who the most reliable doctors are.

On the one hand, you've got people like Anthony "I-Am-The-Science" Fauci, who has never treated a single patient in his entire life, who has flip-flopped his way through covid, who has given false promises, and who's been a complete failure during the entire crisis.

On the other hand, you've got people like Shankara Chetty, who has treated at least 8,000 covid patients, with a 100% success rate: zero deaths, zero hospitalizations, zero need for oxygen, and zero long covid. (And there are many others like him.)

Why should I believe in the failed doctors, when the successful doctors have a completely different view of the issue?

(It goes without saying that the opinions I'm voicing in this thread have been heavily influenced by what I've heard from the successful doctors.)

fransknorge

Of course you are trusting a crackpot who can not provide a single proof of his claim (including producing a single of his 8000 patient), who claims vaccine are a scheme to depopulate the earth (I am writing this from Beyond as a matter of fact) and who has been punished of illegal exercise of medicine. He also publish on YouTube, of course. That fortress of scientific resources.
It makes sense.

js1993

And who are you trusting? The Experts who told us we probably wouldn't have to worry about Covid? The Experts who told us masks would protect us? The Experts who promised getting a Covid "vaccine" would end the pandemic?

CPH-Flyer

I was a bit away, since the evening and the morning was a bit too busy to type longer responses. Am in a slightly wonky time zone these days.

So this is your list of human rights clauses you believe to have been violated. And that's a fair opinion, but it is far from an inevitable fact. If it was so self evident there would be jurisprudence rolling of the dockets to support the notion.

Let's look at the full text of article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

So the individual's notion of liberty takes priority over the state's obligation to provide for life and security for the population as a whole? Where is the life and security for the individuals in Swedish retirement homes that we basically given up the Swedish government, some might argue it is greater violation of the human rights, but I'd probably not go down the argument for that.

I have trust enough in the independence of the Danish courts and the ombudsman institution to know that if this was legit legal complaint there would be rulings to support it. Yet despite a healthy scepticism in society for some (a lot?) of the steps Mette Frederiksen's government took, I don't see the human rights violation cases working their way through the legal system.

You might believe that lockdowns were wrong, and should never have happened. And as you say there are many varieties over the period and over the countries, and I can wholeheartedly say I don't agree with all steps taken throughout 2020 to 2022. Certain aspects of what happened in certain countries may actually go to the level of human rights violations, but a lockdown is not inherently so. And if we stay local in Denmark or Sweden you will get nowhere with a case of human rights violations.


I hate to have to break it to you, but the US constitution is in no way a human rights convention. You are probably thinking about the first ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is of course an open question if the Americans had their first ammendment rights trampled on here. Of course it is being claimed, the problem might be I don't think it is being litigated. There was no federal lockdown, which makes it an interesting case....

​​​
And while it is a popular GOP/MAGA talking point that only the "radical left" were allowed to have protests in the pandemic period it strays pretty far from the actual flow of events.

js1993

Since you're apparently a constitutional expert, would you mind quoting the "pandemic exception" to the text you cited?
​​​
No, it doesn't. People got arrested for having church services in a parking lot.

CPH-Flyer

I am not a constitutional expert, but show me the constitutional cases that was litigated to say that it was a infringement of the first ammendment. The US are quite trigger happy on litigation. But coming back to the point, I asked for human rights being violated, not US laws.

js1993

Who defines or litigates those? Are you suggesting there's no human right to walk outside? To go to church?

CPH-Flyer

I guess we are not in a position to agree here. We subscribe to different and incompatible views, and it is just going to be a time consuming tit for tat with no actual progress or outcome. So I'll remove my subscription here.

Always happy to discuss SAS, other airlines, and travel related topics with you guys. See you in the other threads and forums.

js1993

Weak sauce. You're the one who brought up human rights.