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

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Can you think of any reason why that might be?

Jesus, the wilful ignorance (obtuseness might be a better word for it) of some on here is just astounding :rolleyes:

Most of the people that died were too old and sick to even be brought to ICU.

Have a look at the figures. Only 447 have been admitted to ICU in total since this started.

164 of those were over 65. Compared to 1658 deaths in that category.

You know there are people in hospital at the moment that have tested postive for Covid but aren't actually in hospital due to Covid?

_feedback_

What time today are we expecting the latest update on the plan from our great leaders?

HeidiHeidi

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of the people that died were too old and sick to even be brought to ICU.

Have a look at the figures. Only 447 have been admitted to ICU in total since this started.

164 of those were over 65. Compared to 1658 deaths in that category.

You know there are people in hospital at the moment that have tested postive for Covid but aren't actually in hospital due to Covid?

Ah yes, the disposable oldies.

My elderly mother will thank you for your concern. I'd nearly forgotten what a charmer you are.

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ah yes, the disposable oldies.

My elderly mother will thank you for your concern. I'd nearly forgotten what a charmer you are.

You are shifting the goalposts now.

You asked why hospitals were not overwhelmed. I showed you the data that most people that died were too sick to go to hospital.

Now you are implying that I am a granny killer. Don't worry, we have seen it before on this thread.

weldoninhio

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ah yes, the disposable oldies.

My elderly mother will thank you for your concern. I'd nearly forgotten what a charmer you are.

Old people die. Young people die. Life goes on. My own father died 2 years ago. My best friend died when I was 17. Your mother will die. You will die. I will die.

But I'd prefer to live before I die, rather than spend my life under my bed thinking the covids gonna get me.

Zebra3

Amazing how many people are concerned about our hospitals being overwhelmed, and I'd be curious if they've voted for parties down the year who have constantly failed the health service.

JeffKenna

Zebra3 wrote: »

Amazing how many people are concerned about our hospitals being overwhelmed, and I'd be curious if they've voted for parties down the year who have constantly failed the health service.

Do all the parties not more or less have all the same Health strategy? They certainly did in the last election anyway.

polesheep

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Can you think of any reason why that might be?

Jesus, the wilful ignorance (obtuseness might be a better word for it) of some on here is just astounding :rolleyes:

Yes, Covid was a swift sword that killed the weakest at the outset.

MadYaker

polesheep wrote: »

Yes, Covid was a swift sword that killed the weakest at the outset.

You’re insane if you believe that.

polesheep

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ah yes, the disposable oldies.

My elderly mother will thank you for your concern. I'd nearly forgotten what a charmer you are.

Gradually, on this forum, the lockdown merchants have revealed their motive for keeping everyone in society corralled. Yesterday it was someone's ill and elderly father, today it's your elderly mother. And yet when some people look to get back to normal, they are called selfish. The irony.

polesheep

MadYaker wrote: »

You’re insane if you believe that.

Really? We're not even one year into this and yet history shows that I am correct. You're insane if you think it's going to kill the same numbers in the same short space of time that it did earlier in the year.

topper75

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Ah yes, the disposable oldies.

My elderly mother will thank you for your concern. I'd nearly forgotten what a charmer you are.

I certainly hope the good lady is with us for a long while yet.

However, if that is not to be the case and she becomes frail and near the end, I don't see what good it does to chuck the life opportunities of some young people and the livelihoods of millions over a cliff into the bargain.

That is merely nihilism.

HeidiHeidi

polesheep wrote: »

Gradually, on this forum, the lockdown merchants have revealed their motive for keeping everyone in society corralled. Yesterday it was someone's ill and elderly father, today it's your elderly mother. And yet when some people look to get back to normal, they are called selfish. The irony.

And yet some would have my elderly mother, and a huge number of other at risk people, a lot of whom are not elderly, corralled forever for their own sake because they're vulnerable.

Where's the equity or solidarity in that?

George Orwell was right, some do seem to be more equal than others.

MadYaker

polesheep wrote: »

Really? We're not even one year into this and yet history shows that I am correct. You're insane if you think it's going to kill the same numbers in the same short space of time that it did earlier in the year.

Correct about what?

weldoninhio

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And yet some would have my elderly mother, and a huge number of other at risk people, a lot of whom are not elderly, corralled forever for their own sake because they're vulnerable.

Where's the equity or solidarity in that?

George Orwell was right, some do seem to be more equal than others.

Sounds reasonable.

HeidiHeidi

topper75 wrote: »

I certainly hope the good lady is with us for a long while yet.

However, if that is not to be the case and she becomes frail and near the end, I don't see what good it does to chuck the life opportunities of some young people and the livelihoods of millions over a cliff into the bargain.

That is merely nihilism.

At the moment she is neither frail nor near the end. And long may that last.

But locking her up in her house because others are too selfish to modify their lifestyles a bit in order to try and keep everyone safe(r) will undoubtedly hasten her end.

And that's no more or less hyperbolic than your "nihilism", before I'm accused of it.

HeidiHeidi

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sounds reasonable.

Not to me or my mother, it doesn't.

Why is our opinion worth less than yours?

polesheep

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And yet some would have my elderly mother, and a huge number of other at risk people, a lot of whom are not elderly, corralled forever for their own sake because they're vulnerable.

Where's the equity or solidarity in that?

George Orwell was right, some do seem to be more equal than others.

I don't seek to corral anybody. Your elderly mother has lived a long life but you think it's ok to restrict the lives of others, especially young people, to prolong your mother's life. I don't.

polesheep

MadYaker wrote: »

Correct about what?

That Covid did the bulk of it's killing early on by taking out the weakest.

HeidiHeidi

polesheep wrote: »

I don't seek to corral anybody. Your elderly mother has lived a long life but you think it's ok to restrict the lives of others, especially young people, to prolong your mother's life. I don't.

Oh but you do.

And we're back to the disposable elderly again.

I get the picture.

MadYaker

polesheep wrote: »

I don't seek to corral anybody. Your elderly mother has lived a long life but you think it's ok to restrict the lives of others, especially young people, to prolong your mother's life. I don't.

I thought you said Covid was a swift sword that already killed the weak? I’d like to hear more about that :pac:

polesheep

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Oh but you do.

And we're back to the disposable elderly again.

I get the picture.

I really don't. Your mother should be free to go about her life as she always has done. If she needs to take precautions, so be it, let her take precautions.

I don't believe any human life is disposable, but if you think that the herd will wait indefinitely for the weakest then you are mistaken. It is already on the move as can be seen by the change in behaviour over the last few months.

weldoninhio

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Not to me or my mother, it doesn't.

Why is our opinion worth less than yours?

If I’m allergic to nuts, I don’t go on a tour of the peanut factory. I don’t demand the peanut factory closes either.

If there’s a tiger in my garden, I don’t go out to trim the rose bushes. I don’t demand tigers are made extinct either.

If there is a virus that may adversely effect me. I follow the appropriate precautions to keep myself safe. I don’t demand everyone change their behaviours to suit me.

paw patrol

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And yet some would have my elderly mother, and a huge number of other at risk people, a lot of whom are not elderly, corralled forever for their own sake because they're vulnerable.

Where's the equity or solidarity in that?

George Orwell was right, some do seem to be more equal than others.

If you are worried about covid you should isolate. That applies to all people. But it should be by choice.

Life is full of risk , that is always how it's been. As a society we should accept this risk. The notion that we should all give up our quality of life for others , for years, sounds noble but it's nothing but a nasty attempt at a guilt trip.
The damage to society by these restrictions is piling up. There are too many aspects to list, but we know them all. Where is your concern and solidarity for the impact on others in society? It appears to be lacking..

polesheep

MadYaker wrote: »

I thought you said Covid was a swift sword that already killed the weak? I’d like to hear more about that :pac:

I didn't. I said this: "Yes, Covid was a swift sword that killed the weakest at the outset."

But you go ahead and rewrite my words.

HeidiHeidi

polesheep wrote: »

I really don't. Your mother should be free to go about her life as she always has done. If she needs to take precautions, so be it, let her take precautions.

I don't believe any human life is disposable, but if you think that the herd will wait indefinitely for the weakest then you are mistaken. It is already on the move as can be seen by the change in behaviour over the last few months.

But why should she have to take all the precautions and you none?

Just because she happens to be vulnerable? Anyone could be or become vulnerable to the virus.

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But why should she have to take all the precautions and you none?

Just because she happens to be vulnerable? Anyone could be or become vulnerable to the virus.

Yes.

When people become vulnerable, then it really is up to them to protect themselves.

weldoninhio

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But why should she have to take all the precautions and you none?

Just because she happens to be vulnerable? Anyone could be or become vulnerable to the virus.

Because she's the one at risk. Is this not obvious?? :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But why should she have to take all the precautions and you none?

Just because she happens to be vulnerable? Anyone could be or become vulnerable to the virus.

And then they'll have to take precautions against getting it. Do you see how this works??

manniot2

when can we expect the next round of tik tok videos from the hospitals?