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

bucketybuck

Another day without a covid death.

Government officials are reported to be "very concerned".

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Unbelievable stuff.

Sweden have imposed restrictions but still have excess death's!

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Unbelievable stuff.

Sweden have imposed restrictions but still have excess death's!

The way in which you misinterpret certain points and fail to answer other direct questions feels very deliberate Fintan.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

The way in which you misinterpret certain points and fail to answer other direct questions feels very deliberate Fintan.

Not at all deliberate.

The figures dont add up.

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to, Im just looking for quantifible data that shows a distinct correlation between restrictions and a low death rate.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Not at all deliberate.

The figures dont add up.

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to, Im just looking for quantifible data that shows a distinct correlation between restrictions and a low death rate.

How do you explain away the resurgence of cases in the United States once restrictions were eased.

Interesting how you seem very fond to talk about Sweden, but seem very reluctant to talk about the US.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to

Overweight people of all ages. That's a lot of people. Not to mention those with underlying conditions of all ages - even basic things. Then there's discarding all the over 65s as if they're all on the edge of death already. The exact same arguments you're going through now are those put forward in March - "Let's not have a lockdown, we know who it affects let's just protect them" without thinking (or caring) of the practicalities.

FintanMcluskey

fr336 wrote: »

Overweight people of all ages. That's a lot of people. Not to mention those with underlying conditions of all ages - even basic things. Then there's discarding all the over 65s as if they're all on the edge of death already. The exact same arguments you're going through now are those put forward in March - "Let's not have a lockdown, we know who it affects let's just protect them" without thinking (or caring) of the practicalities.

One positive thing about Covid is regarding obesity. Hopefully the porky people out there will realise the importance of exercise and healthy eating.

It could inadvertently lower the mortality rate from a plethora of other causes

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

Until we have a vaccine, this is what we need to do to keep each other safe. People throughout history have had periods where they have had to suffer, many to a much greater degree than this. It'll end when we have good treatments and vaccines, both of which are currently on track for delivery by next year.

I agree with this. I'm talking about the potential scenario in which no such vaccine materialises, which we have repeatedly warned is a real possibility. In that scenario, my point remains - this way of 'living' cannot continue forever. The vast majority of people will not accept long term social isolation of this kind.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

One positive thing about Covid is regarding obesity. Hopefully the porky people out there will realise the importance of exercise and healthy eating.

It could inadvertently lower the mortality rate from a plethora of other causes

"Porky" That's not very nice is it. You can be overweight by just a bit - does that make you worse than those people who stuff their faces and are just within the "not overweight" catergory. Also I would say most seriously overweight people are eating for comfort, often put down by others throughout their life. Then you get trim people who stuff their faces but because of their genes they don't really put on weight. Then they have the cheek to criticise overweight people..

FintanMcluskey

fr336 wrote: »

"Porky" That's not very nice is it. You can be overweight by just a bit - does that make you worse than those people who stuff their faces and are just within the "not overweight" catergory. Also I would say most seriously overweight people are eating for comfort, often put down by others throughout their life. Then you get trim people who stuff their faces but because of their genes they don't really put on weight. Then they have the cheek to criticise overweight people..

This right here is the issue.

Completely in favour of restricting the nation, but not in favour of people becoming motivated to help themselves.

Luckily the cure for obesity is free for us all.

Its to easy to say lock everyone else up.

Loafing Oaf

While we're on the subject, Boris Johnson's decision to launch an anti-obesity drive suggests he blames his mild chubbiness, rather than just random bad luck, for getting into such serious bother with the virus. Is he likely to be right about this? I mean this is a guy who was pretty physically active and in perfect health otherwise, AFAIK. If so, there's a lot more of us want to be making damn sure we don't get the virus.:eek:

Arghus

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This right here is the issue.

Completely in favour of restricting the nation, but not in favour of people becoming motivated to help themselves.

Luckily the cure for obesity is free for us all.

Its to easy to say lock everyone else up.

Who is being locked up??? And where do you draw the line? If it affected people who were younger than you, would that be okay?

fr336

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

While we're on the subject, Boris Johnson's decision to launch an anti-obesity drive suggests he blames his mild chubbiness, rather than just random bad luck, for getting into such serious bother with the virus. Is he likely to be right about this? I mean this is a guy who was pretty physically active and in perfect health otherwise, AFAIK. If so, there's a lot more of us want to be making damn sure we don't get the virus.:eek:

That's true, actually. The anti fatty people would probably call BoJo porky, but he wasn't what I would call hugely overweight. And he had a very active job. At the peak of this in the UK all sorts of people were being hospitalised.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

I need to research it first, which I will do when I get a minute.

Im not going to waffle illiterate jabber about a subject like many on this thread appear to

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

What’s to explain?
Crazy leader, crazy people.
They can’t see how people having guns leads to gun deaths.
Serious obesity problems. They go around on fat mobiles in Walmart.

I could go on and on. America are a special case.

If oil was up for grabs, they might try harder.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s to explain?
Crazy leader, crazy people.
They can’t see how people having guns leads to gun deaths.
Serious obesity problems. They go around on fat mobiles in Walmart.

I could go on and on. America are a special case.

If oil was up for grabs, they might try harder.

Okay, that's a great dissection of America's many societal ills.

But what relevance has that got in relation to rising case numbers and deaths in the states once they eased their restrictions too quickly?

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, that's a great dissection of America's many societal ills.

But what relevance has that got in relation to rising case numbers and deaths in the states once they eased their restrictions too quickly?

What states are you referring to?

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What states are you referring to?

Now, now. Don't try to derail the conversation. You know, or at least you should know, where I'm referring too.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Now, now. Don't try to derail the conversation. You know, or at least you should know, where I'm referring too.

Lets stop the smoke and mirrors.

Which states are you referring to?

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Lets stop the smoke and mirrors.

Which states are you referring to?

The United States of America Fintan.

FintanMcluskey

fr336 wrote: »

If it affected people who were younger than you, would that be okay?

It does affect people younger than me.

Well to say affect is a strange way to describe it.

Most are actually asymptomatic and haven't a clue they have it, but they have to get a test through contact tracing etc to confirm they have the virus.

This positive test will then be communicated to the public via some flute on a public service broadcast in a finger wagging style.

The "sick" person will then self isolate for 2 weeks, while reading articles about "top doctor's" who are very concerned at a rise in Covid 19 cases among the young.

polesheep

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, that's a great dissection of America's many societal ills.

But what relevance has that got in relation to rising case numbers and deaths in the states once they eased their restrictions too quickly?

I'm not sure it has anything to do with restrictions, either imposed or eased. My son is living there and he told me recently that he is dumbstruck at what he has seen. Elderly, obese, those with co-morbidities and often people who fit all three categories, walking/waddling around as though the virus doesn't even exist. They might as well wear a sign saying "I'm weak, come and get me".

charlie14

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

I know you are rattling off posts here as if there was a prize going Fintan, but try reading reading them rather than misquote them. I did not say they had a lockdown. I said the had, and still do have, restrictions. To see how in-effective those restriction were in comparison to lockdown, you only have to look at Sweden`s Nordic neighbours. All three of which used lockdown.

On excessive deaths you appear to have totally missed the point. Sweden`s excess deaths are 9,500. Their reported Covid-19 deaths for the same period are 5,500.
That leaves 4,000 excess deaths over and above Sweden`s Covid-19 reported deaths.
I asked you already, but with your rate of rattling off posts you may have missed it.
Have you any possible explanation for this very high anomaly ?

Arghus

polesheep wrote: »

I'm not sure it has anything to do with restrictions, either imposed or eased. My son is living there and he told me recently that he is dumbstruck at what he has seen. Elderly, obese, those with co-morbidities and often people who fit all three categories, walking/waddling around as though the virus doesn't even exist. They might as well wear a sign saying "I'm weak, come and get me".

It is a fact that after cases and deaths first fell, restrictions and stay at home orders were lifted - and then cases began once again to rise and now deaths are also starting to rise again. There's a strong casual link there that is very hard to deny. Even though, I know, ye will try.

The situation you describe there sounds like people being careless and not obeying restrictions. That's not an argument against them, it actually argues for the opposite: if people pay heed to them there's less danger

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

I know you are rattling off posts here as if there was a prize going Fintan, but try reading reading them rather than misquote them

Covid has really indoctrinated hyprocracy into many misguided opinions.

You are guilty of the same Charlie, Im trying to instill a sense of pragmatism and quench the fire of hysteria and misery many are guilty of adding fuel too.

Excess deaths can be calculated at the year end.

Many vulnerable souls were lost in a short period of time leaving stronger healthy people to survive.

The rising positive case numbers are great news, its lowering the CFR as it becomes more treatable and many are asymptomatic.

The world wont end just yet, although some are clinging to that notion it seem's

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Covid has really indoctrinated hyprocracy into many misguided opinions.

You are guilty of the same Charlie, Im trying to instill a sense of pragmatism and quench the fire of hysteria and misery many are guilty of adding fuel too.

Excess deaths can be calculated at the year end.

Many vulnerable souls were lost in a short period of time leaving stronger healthy people to survive.

The rising positive case numbers are great news, its lowering the CFR as it becomes more treatable and many are asymptomatic.

The world wont end just yet, although some are clinging to that notion it seem's

Bingo.

Thread has gone full Trump.

polesheep

Arghus wrote: »

It is a fact that after cases and deaths first fell, restrictions and stay at home orders were lifted - and then cases began once again to rise and now deaths are also starting to rise again. There's a strong casual link there that is very hard to deny. Even though, I know, ye will try.

The situation you describe there sounds like people being careless and not obeying restrictions. That's not an argument against them, it actually argues for the opposite: if people pay heed to them there's less danger

Nope. It demonstrates that the people who really should be restricted pay no heed to them. And it indicates that rising deaths tallies with exposure of the vulnerable.

Arghus

polesheep wrote: »

Nope. It demonstrates that the people who really should be restricted pay no heed to them. And it indicates that rising deaths tallies with exposure of the vulnerable.

Eh, yeah, that is exactly what I'm saying?

polesheep

Arghus wrote: »

Eh, yeah, that is exactly what I'm saying?

You have been in favour of restrictions for all.