Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

You do know there was giant measures put in place across the globe in order to contain the virus and prevent excess deaths. That's why we didn't have so many deaths?

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

Sweden proved that restrictions didn't do much but inconvenience the majority of the population.

Restrictions were only helpful for getting testing, tracing etc up and running.

fr336

Arghus wrote: »

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

I'm not sure they do fail to get it. Many people here in March wouldn't hear of a lockdown despite cases surging across the globe and hospitals struggling to cope already.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

You do know there was giant measures put in place across the globe in order to contain the virus and prevent excess deaths. That's why we didn't have so many deaths?

How can some of you consistently fail to get this?

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

The media does do daily reporting on car crashes. Now, to be fair, maybe you don't watch the news all that much

They mention if a death occurs. And sometimes local radio stations might mention crashes.

But I never see a daily countrywide summary of crashes reported in the last 24 hours and deaths.

People are used to car crashes and have accepted they are part of life.

Possibly they will have to eventually accept Covid is another thing that kill you.
For now, its all hysteria.

fr336

Deleted User wrote: »

Possibly they will have to eventually accept Covid is another thing that kill you.
For now, its all hysteria.

You can call it hysteria because the lockdown and restrictions stopped it from being more serious. Plenty of other stories on the news these days, back to silly showbiz stories etc. But of course a rare pandemic which has had severe social and economic implications is still going to produce headlines.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sweden proved that restrictions didn't do much but inconvenience the majority of the population.

Restrictions were only helpful for getting testing, tracing etc up and running.

Sweden did have restrictions though.

People worked from home
Social distancing was practiced.
Public buildings closed
Colleges closed
Limits on outdoor gatherings
Advice not to travel within the country
Businesses that flouted restrictions on social distancing and capacity were closed.

There was plenty of restrictions on the lives of Swedish people, it wasn't as restrictive as other countries but it wasn't normal life. Life was different in Sweden too.

You're wrong to say restrictions were only useful for getting tracing, testing up and running. That was secondary, the primary aim was to control the outbreak and to stop the loss of life.

Spanish Eyes

fr336 wrote: »

I'm not sure they do fail to get it. Many people here in March wouldn't hear of a lockdown despite cases surging across the globe and hospitals struggling to cope already.

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

Fintan why can't you be honest when you're debating?

I never said they had a lockdown.

I said they had restrictions, which they had.

You were saying they had none at all, which isn't true.

FintanMcluskey

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

Anyone I have spoken to, at work or outside, that shares your views, also has a complete misunderstanding of what restrictions can achieve regarding the virus.

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

You’re making it up as yous go now folks. At least pick and argument and stick with it.

fr336

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re making it up as yous go now folks. At least pick and argument and stick with it.

What is your argument and where do you think the government has been wrong since March?

fr336

fr336 wrote: »

What is your argument and where do you think the government has been wrong since March?

8 people in hospital in the whole country.
We should be fully open with just 1M social distancing, advise for elders to take care if going out and proper controls on the airport to prevent flights from US and other countries doing really bad.

Nothing else is needed right now IMO.

We are well able to fight this disease a lot harder than we are.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Anyone I have spoken to, at work or outside, that shares your views, also has a complete misunderstanding of what restrictions can achieve regarding the virus.

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

Fintan you're basing your opinions on absolutely nothing.

is_that_so

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The same colleagues were incensed a fortnight ago when they heard Apple wouldnt have to "pay" the 12 bn they "owed" Ireland.

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

Arghus

is_that_so wrote: »

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

It's not, it's just random noise thrown in for good measure.

polesheep

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most on this thread still think that way. Gawd help us.

We are where we are because of the actions taken to suppress the virus. But once the warriors on here get things opened up to THEIR satisfaction, it could be a different story going forward (hate that phrase but can't think of another one lol).

I accept the impact on the economy, but from what I can see the areas most impacted are drink only pubs, theatres, gatherings of more than 50, and spectator sports. What have I forgotten? I am sure I will be told soon enough.

Cautious approach is what most people want, the demographic on here is not in any way representative of the wider view IMO.

We are where we are because they finally got to grips with the situation in the nursing/care homes and the elderly/vulnerable took care of themselves. For all others it's not such a big deal. Hence the low numbers in the hospitals.

FintanMcluskey

is_that_so wrote: »

That's people incensed at the Apple decision. How exactly is that opinion linked to this?

I was making the point many people are strongly opinionated on things with little evidence or understanding.

Try and keep up

FintanMcluskey

polesheep wrote: »

We are where we are because they finally got to grips with the situation in the nursing/care homes and the elderly/vulnerable took care of themselves. For all others it's not such a big deal. Hence the low numbers in the hospitals.

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

polesheep

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

Indeed. And this was known right from the start, but suggesting restrictions around this group only was greeted with outrage. No, it had to be restrictions for all.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

Identify this group.

Loafing Oaf

polesheep wrote: »

Indeed. And this was known right from the start, but suggesting restrictions around this group only was greeted with outrage.

You can't just seal off everyone over 65 in a glass bubble like Deckard's daughter


Large numbers of elderly live with children/grandchildren. How are they supposed to be protected if the rest of the household is going about their normal business and likely contracting the virus

fr336

Good luck isolating the over 65s when the kids want them for babysitting duty

is_that_so

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I was making the point many people are strongly opinionated on things with little evidence or understanding.

Try and keep up

Oh, I'm caught up thanks. You're a fan of Sweden's "correct" approach, not at all of what we did and some people you know who are angry about the Apple decision somehow makes a "good" point here.

namloc1980

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

In fairness if 1,700 people died on our roads in the space of 3 or 4 months, it would certainly be time to panic.

Penfailed

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

Can you catch a potentially fatal virus from a car crash? No. You're not comparing like with like.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

That's some twisting of what was actually said right there ^^^

Arghus

Penfailed wrote: »

That's some twisting of what was actually said right there ^^^

Nothing new there!

polesheep

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You can't just seal off everyone over 65 in a glass bubble like Deckard's daughter


Large numbers of elderly live with children/grandchildren. How are they supposed to be protected if the rest of the household is going about their normal business and likely contracting the virus

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals. What we are doing today is what we should have done at the start. And eased things from that point. The nursing/care homes were the real disaster in this pandemic.

Arghus

polesheep wrote: »

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals. What we are doing today is what we should have done at the start. And eased things from that point. The nursing/care homes were the real disaster in this pandemic.

Yes, but that's because the measures we took were effective in stopping the spread of the disease in the wider community.

We should have been doing this at the start? With thousands of active cases in the country. What do you think the outcome would have been then?

Loafing Oaf

polesheep wrote: »

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals.

But that's because transmission has been largely suppressed in the community as a whole, not primarily because of measures specifically designed to protect the elderly. And it remains to be seen whether this will hold true when 'normal business' resumes fully in the realms of schools, pubs, foreign travel etc.