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

pm1977x

pm1977x wrote: »

The alternative is to say everyone go ahead and do what you want, the result being instead of increased loneliness or social isolation an increase risk of death, I know which I'd choose.

I know many young people in their 20s who have adapted by face timing, zoom quizzes, movie watch parties, etc...they are the online generation and were able to cope, now they're all out meeting up again (not always safely) but the face to face thing is back, even if sometimes behind a mask.

There is a bit of a quality/quantity argument in there.
IMO, some things are worse than death.
Losing the quality in our lives is one of those things.

I don't think we are quite there yet. Another few months of this and we'll certainly be a lot closer.

skelly22

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, that is a pretty poor attitude to have.

You have already decided your position and nothing will change it.

But ask yourself these questions.
Are you 100% certain that you or anyone in your household will never get the virus?
Do you know that the person calling to your door is immune?
Do you believe that masks can reduce the spread of droplets and thus reduce the possible spread of the virus?

Unless you can answer, with 100% certainty Yes to the 1st 2 and No to the third then your position is very much open to being wrong.

That is not to say it is, but you must accept that there is a risk. So by extension, you are saying that it is a risk you are willing to take, without asking the other person first.

This is how far we've come. Some people have already decided that me walking outside my door with my face uncovered is a "poor attitude" - even before it's mandatory!! A window to what lies ahead.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

My father in law sat in a house on his own for 2 months with just a tesco delivery arriving every week. We go to visit him every week now but that is mainly the only face to face contact he gets. Previously he would have headed down to the pub one or two days and got chatting. Thats gone for him now. I've literally seen the hope disappear from his face each week.

This seems to be something you can proactively alleviate.
Get the phone numbers of his friends from him.
Ring them. Arrange a suitable time when all available to meet up. Book a 2 hour slot in a suitable foodpub for 8.30 on a Tuesday or something. Drive them all there beforehand, drive them all home afterwards.
Rinse and repeat each week, hopefully some of his friends' families will take on the organisational/driving duties in a rota.

Look it's not ideal I know and it's a bit of logistical work, but it's doable and better than seeing him moping surely.

Leroy42

skelly22 wrote: »

This is how far we've come. Some people have already decided that me walking outside my door with my face uncovered is a "poor attitude" - even before it's mandatory!! A window to what lies ahead.

No, it's the attitude that nothing can convince you otherwise that is poor.

That is never a good attitude to have. You have your mind made up and to hell with facts and advice or things changing.

Leroy42

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be taking this to wild extremes and furiously overthinking it all. The poster did refer to going out their front door, there's absolutely no logic that can lead you to believe they will not follow public health guidance where it has been given.

I am merely trying to understand the logic behind their position.

LuckyLloyd

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are there still people out there that believe lockdown is an effective tool to combat Covid-19?

It's laughable at this stage. How many billions will need to be flushed down the toilet, how many hundreds of thousands of viable jobs need to be lost before the penny drops?

The virus will outlast our ability to stay locked down - that's the reality.

What lockdown? We're out of lockdown for over two months now.

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'm not basing it on a hunch if you bothered to even read my previous post the man that was interviewed has a PHD in immunology so does that mean his thoughts on herd immunity are complete bollox and we shouldn't listen to him and the evidence that he has provided?

I already answered that point. Dr Fauci in the US, world known expert, says it is useful to wear masks.

I can ut up a video of him but not sure it does anything to move the discussion on .

As I pointed out, an expert can be wrong, as you seem to be very happy to accept. So this expert could be wrong. He might be right. I certainly am not qualified to judge.

But looking at the rest of the world, those countries that following the advice properly, New Zealand, Thailand etc, seemed to have faired far better than those that didn't.

As per the deaths per million, as pointed out it all depends on how the numbers are counted. I wouldn't believe a world coming out of the US at the moment for example. But the US number is increasing by 1k+ a day and that appears to be increasing, and all indicators point to them being in the middle of this rather than the back end so deaths per million will continue to grow.

Penfailed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are at breaking point.

That's twice you've typed that this morning. It's not true for the vast majority of people. The maintenance of the current restrictions is still widely supported.

skelly22

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, it's the attitude that nothing can convince you otherwise that is poor.

That is never a good attitude to have. You have your mind made up and to hell with facts and advice or things changing.

My position was that I won't be convinced I need to cover my face to live my life. You've concocted everything else & drawn your own conclusions.

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

That's twice you've typed that this morning. It's not true for the vast majority of people. The maintenance of the current restrictions is still widely supported.

They are supported by people who believe the restrictions are required.

The sort of people who type notes of condolences on news websites to hoover thanks

Leroy42

skelly22 wrote: »

My position was that I won't be convinced I need to cover my face to live my life. You've concocted everything else & drawn your own conclusions.

What have a concocted?

Leroy42

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They are supported by people who believe the restrictions are required.

The sort of people who type notes of condolences on news websites to hoover thanks

More made-up assertions.

You think only those type of people (not sure what type they are really) support the restrictions?

On what basis do you think the majority have not supported the restrictions? By and large, Ireland as a society has done a good job in getting together on this issue.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They are supported by people who believe the restrictions are required.

Yes. The vast majority of people in this country.

Penfailed

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'm not basing it on a hunch if you bothered to even read my previous post the man that was interviewed has a PHD in immunology so does that mean his thoughts on herd immunity are complete bollox and we shouldn't listen to him and the evidence that he has provided?

There are outliers in every field of science. There are some scientists that think people shouldn't be vaccinated. It doesn't mean that they are right even though they are well qualified. These people aren't published in The Lancet and have to rely on YouTube videos because the majority of the scientific community think that they are wrong (even dangerous).

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

I already answered that point. Dr Fauci in the US, world known expert, says it is useful to wear masks.

I can ut up a video of him but not sure it does anything to move the discussion on .

As I pointed out, an expert can be wrong, as you seem to be very happy to accept. So this expert could be wrong. He might be right. I certainly am not qualified to judge.

But looking at the rest of the world, those countries that following the advice properly, New Zealand, Thailand etc, seemed to have faired far better than those that didn't.

As per the deaths per million, as pointed out it all depends on how the numbers are counted. I wouldn't believe a world coming out of the US at the moment for example. But the US number is increasing by 1k+ a day and that appears to be increasing, and all indicators point to them being in the middle of this rather than the back end so deaths per million will continue to grow.

If we are not qualified to judge the opinions of the experts then how do the powers to be judge those opinions, Since they aren't experts themselves and they are relying on the work of expert?

How do they decide to listen to one expert and not the other for example ignoring experts that discuss herd immunity as a possible solution rather than other experts suggesting that the the only solution is a vaccine?

We need a balanced debate on this but unfortunately it is not happening because the opinions of dissenting experts are quickly dismissed or ignored which isn't right IMO.

Sure the US will get worse but if you break it down to state by state and treat each state as a different country then some are doing a lot better than others. As some states haven't reached the peak yet but people see the 150,000 deaths number and are easily fooled into thinking that they are doing a terrible job but as I've already said if you compare the deaths per million of population they are not the worse country by a long stretch.

Sure they could have handled the situation a lot better but a bit of perspective is very important in these situations.

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

That's twice you've typed that this morning. It's not true for the vast majority of people. The maintenance of the current restrictions is still widely supported.

How do you know?

LessOutragePlz

Penfailed wrote: »

There are outliers in every field of science. There are some scientists that think people shouldn't be vaccinated. It doesn't mean that they are right even though they are well qualified. These people aren't published in The Lancet and have to rely on YouTube videos because the majority of the scientific community think that they are wrong (even dangerous).

I'm not suggesting we rely on experts that have no qualifications but every single "outlier" can't be wrong your using an extreme example of some scientists saying that people shouldn't be vaccinated.

How would you decide that the opinion of the expert is right or wrong?

The person that I posted the interview with on YouTube is well qualified to discuss the topic so he is not just some fake YouTube expert.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=prof.+beda+m.+stadler+publications&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

There are outliers in every field of science.

Unfortunately for us they were the ones we based the lockdown on

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know?

Because he has picked that side of the debate and is going to stick to it no matter what.

Simple fact is that you have to be very naive to think that the thousands of people who have lost their jobs, their social life and their support systems are sitting there content with the way things are going.

I know people who have lost their jobs, I know people waiting on cancer screening, I know people without any exam results, I know people who now go days and weeks without meeting anybody new. But sure who cares about them, right?

I don't see anybody arguing to ignore the coronavirus, but when people are suffering material loss due to the actions taken then those actions better be justified.

growleaves

pm1977x wrote: »

Agreed, the initial thread started out as a balanced discussion on the merits or otherwise of relaxing restrictions but very quickly the moderate voices were shouted down and bullied out of it by people who were hellbent on opening up ASAP, no questions asked, all precautions out the window.

It's very strange to be so completely blinkered, I used to lurk in here as I'm admittedly very conservative on the topic and wanted to read differing opinions, but it quickly became an aggressive echo chamber.

False. Nobody was bullied out of this thread for not supporting restrictions. I've commented extensively on all V threads from day one and almost every point I made was met with rebuttals, requests for explication etc. from supporters of the government's policies.

skelly22

Leroy42 wrote: »

What have a concocted?

For a start, that my attitude is "to hell with the facts". It's my understanding of the facts that will ensure I will never wear a face mask upon opening my front door. You'll be an easy sell though I reckon.

Penfailed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you know?

Opinion polls.

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

Opinion polls.

I would imagine the type of people that spend their time completing opinion polls would be in favour of restrictions alright

growleaves

On July 12, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed an astonishing thing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘do wear them’.

But the key fact was that it had not done so because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of political lobbying.

She revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this to the WHO, which did not deny it.

In March, the WHO had said: ‘There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.’

The American TV news channel CNN reported on March 31 that Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies programme, had said at a briefing in Geneva: ‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.

‘In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.’

A few weeks ago, the WHO changed its advice to say it ‘advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments.’

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/07/peter-hitchens-face-masks-turn-us-into-voiceless-submissives-and-its-not-science-forcing-us-to-wear-.html

Tl;dr the WHO changed its stance on masks due to political lobbying.

Joe Hand-Soap thinks that the WHO=scientists, doesn't understand that the WHO is a multi-leveled bureaucratic globalist political institution balancing all sorts of competing interests and opinions, both medical and political.

Joe Hand-Soap also believes that political reasons for controlling actions by governments represent an extraordinary claim and that the claimant must produce a profile of motivation explaining why exactly this or that politician seeks to exercise influence over people (ie, a conspiracy theory).

There is no natural distrust of power anymore and I think that has to do with the fact that so many ordinary working people are themselves prevaricating bureaucrats, IT workers and in other jobs where a mixture of datasets, incoherent jargon and half-truths define their lives for 40 hours a week.

Elmer Blooker

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What lockdown? We're out of lockdown for over two months now.

Passenger numbers down 97% at Dublin Airport for June!
Is that 'lockdown' enough for our tourist industry?

facehugger99

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What lockdown? We're out of lockdown for over two months now.

Cool - better let the Govt know they're paying 350,000 people the Covid emergency payment in error so.:rolleyes:

LessOutragePlz

growleaves wrote: »

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/07/peter-hitchens-face-masks-turn-us-into-voiceless-submissives-and-its-not-science-forcing-us-to-wear-.html

Tl;dr the WHO changed its stance on masks due to political lobbying.

Joe Hand-Soap thinks that the WHO=scientists, doesn't understand that the WHO is a multi-leveled bureaucratic globalist political institution balancing all sorts of competing interests and opinions, both medical and political.

Joe Hand-Soap also believes that political reasons for controlling actions by governments represent an extraordinary claim and that the claimant must produce a profile of motivation explaining why exactly this or that politician seeks to exercise influence over people (ie, a conspiracy theory).

There is no natural distrust of power anymore and I think that has to do with the fact that so many ordinary working people are themselves prevaricating bureaucrats, IT workers and in other jobs where a mixture of datasets, incoherent jargon and half-truths define their lives for 40 hours a week.

Ah but the WHO are the world's leading experts on the situation and we should listen to them and if we don't we're bat sh1t crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Here's a link to more of the WHO's nonsense about there needing to be 60-80% exposure for herd in immunity to be effective.

https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1288820368451526656?s=19

And before some people call me out for saying how does some fella on Twitter know more about this than the experts at the WHO? Just take a look at the facts and evidence he uses to substantiate his points as well as the detail he goes into it shouldn't take you too long to see that he tears their "expert" opinion to pieces.

prunudo

prunudo wrote: »

I've seen it time and time again on numerous threads and facebook comments since covid began. If you dare to question policy or why we are being made to do something you're automatically a tinfoil hat wearing anti vaxxer conspiracy theorist.

Not all who question the government advice are tinfoil hat wearing anti vax conspiracy theorists, but all tinfoil hat wearing anti vax conspiracy theorists query the government advice no matter what it is.

There are people who think it is all about control, that the powers that be are out to chip away at our freedoms and inalienable rights. That this is a precursor to mandatory vaccinations and micro-chipping of citizens, that Bill Gates et al are hellbent on eugenics programmes to forcibly sterilise the proles in an effort to depopulate the earth for some vague, indeterminate and often unexplained nefarious purpose. These people are, to put it bluntly, nucking futs.

Unfortunately, those with valid concerns and queries/criticism of Government policies end up getting pigeon-holed with these loolahs, and dismissed as nutjobs. It is perfectly fine and valid to question the Government, but when the majority who are doing so are literally doing it to simply have a go and 'fight da powah', then you run the risk of being tarred with the same brush. The slippery slope fallacy doesn't wash, in this instance, I'm afraid.

Knuckle down, comply with the restrictions and with a bit of luck, they'll be lifted soon. Certainly, they'll be lifted sooner than they would if people don't follow the guidelines. That alone is reason enough to comply.

Coillte_Bhoy

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I would imagine the type of people that spend their time completing opinion polls would be in favour of restrictions alright

You know as little about opinion polling as you do about many other topics it would seem

road_high

ixoy wrote: »

I think that final third will be a much tougher sell. Even on public transport, compliance isn't great depending on what time you go at and certainly in the shops I went to it was disappointingly low (and it is not mandatory in shops). And these are places that it will be easier to manage than outside. I think it will be an extremely hard sell and I'd be surprised if it's brought in.

I can accept wearing masks indoors, in shops etc. There’s some logic there. But everywhere outdoors? No fcukin way absolutely pointless. Is this what is being proposed?