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

Libski

Libski wrote: »

Which would you choose? Simple question.

If it was 1 life vs 1 job, I would choose life of course.

But its not is it? We currently have close to quarter of a million on PUP payments vs less than 2000 dead.

So its more like over 100 livelihoods destroyed per death. In that case, 1 death is better than 100+ people losing jobs. Simple answer.

Libski

bucketybuck wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of people are only in danger of one of those.

I think the vast majority are in danger of neither.

robfowler78

I think the end game for this is the same as any other virus or disease that we currently live with a vacine will just help it won't solve it. What's clear is we need a better health service we have needed this for a long time have people forgotten the trolley counts every year during winter. We are vastly under prepared with ICU beds. Long term:

we need to stop reporting every test and positive case on the news.

Concentrate on the hospitalisations

Keep our current message of hand washing etc but this should be a message every winter not just because of Covid. I know I don't visit elderly relatives when I have a bad cold never have I though that's just common sense.

We need a proper track and trace system.

We are wasting billions of euro that could be used to rearrange and organise the health service. Money has never been cheaper to borrow.

The original lockdown should of been used to do this instead we really didn't do anything meaningful to improve our ICU etc. I think people thought this would be over much sooner including people in government.

We can't lockdown forever regardless of what people think stadiums can't stay empty, hospitality can't stay closed we need to start except this is not going anywere. People will die as they do every day for a load of different reasons it can't be avoided its nobel and no one likes to see people die but we now it happens for lots of reason to young, old, explained unexplained every day.

If people can't see even the WHO are starting to talk about lockdowns not been the primary weapon that's because countries are realising they need to get the finances in order they can't come out and say that but let me tell you as soon as winter is over vacine or no vacine the summer will be used to change the narrative and the government will roll back on alot of there ideas and the people advocating lockdown will be hearing a different message.

Libski

Deleted User wrote: »

If it was 1 life vs 1 job, I would choose life of course.

But its not is it? We currently have close to quarter of a million on PUP payments vs less than 2000 dead.

So its more like over 100 livelihoods destroyed per death. In that case, 1 death is better than 100+ people losing jobs. Simple answer.

What if that death was yours? That's my question - your livelihood or life.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So its more like over 100 livelihoods destroyed per death. In that case, 1 death is better than 100+ people losing jobs. Simple answer.

It is absolutely astonishing there are people who think like this, society really is f*cked.

Libski

Libski wrote: »

What if that death was yours? That's my question - your livelihood or life.

If I die, I die. I am 1 person in a country of 5M. I am not expecting any special treatment.

I'd hate to think that 100's had to suffer to keep me alive.

bucketybuck

Libski wrote: »

I think the vast majority are in danger of neither.

Then you don't understand economics and the real life consequences of recession.

Libski

Deleted User wrote: »

If I die, I die. I am 1 person in a country of 5M. I am not expecting any special treatment.

I'd hate to think that 100's had to suffer to keep me alive.

You'd rather die than see a person lose money?

Really?

Why do you think so lowly of yourself?

Libski

bucketybuck wrote: »

Then you don't understand economics and the real life consequences of recession.

I studied economics. I understand it. But I guess my view is fundamental - that life is more important than money.

Being dead is worse than being in hardship.

paw patrol

Libski wrote: »

I want you to explain how you justify putting lives at risk.

That isn't what you asked - you asked how the restrictions affected me.
Leaving aside the risk is the square root of sod all.
I'm putting nobody at risk that doesn't accept the risk. Every person I visit or visits me knows my attitude and tbh we all have the same attitude.

If I went to a niteclub tonight - who would be there that wasn't happy to accept the risk? tell me?

If I don't wear a mask in the supermarket who am I infecting?

Given the HSE state that you must be 15mins with a person to be a close contact and as I stated earlier there is , after 8 months, no infections from supermarkts despite them being open all the time. You'd' think hordes of staff would have died now from this deadly virus? but that hasn't happened.

why would I hide myself and my person for something I didn't believe in -cos the man on the telly told me ? :rolleyes:

Now I'm not unreasonable...if we had a better plan , some targets and timelines...I may suck it up. But we don't.

BTW come back next summer and call me selfish cos i won't take a rushed barely tested vaccine either....

Libski

Libski wrote: »

I studied economics. I understand it. But I guess my view is fundamental - that life is more important than money.

Being dead is worse than being in hardship.

And 1 person dead is better than 1000 in hardship.

SusieBlue

Libski wrote: »

I think the vast majority are in danger of neither.

You are sadly mistaken. Half a million people are on PUP, at the height of the pandemic there was 1.25 million people surviving on partial or full financial support from the state.
So yes, quite a lot of futures, livelihoods and homes are at risk here. Just because it doesn’t negatively effect you doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone.

Housing was hard to access before the pandemic when we were at near full levels of employment, can you even imagine how many people are going to be excluded now?
How many will lose their homes because they can’t pay the mortgage they had to save for years for to get? Or how many renters are going to be evicted? This is going to have a massive impact on the already critical housing crisis.

There has to be a balance of interests, no one life is more important or more valuable than the next. It isn’t a case of saving one life for one livelihood, that’s completely over simplifying it.
It’s more a case of sacrificing a couple of hundred livelihoods and futures for maybe one life.

Libski

paw patrol wrote: »

That isn't what you asked - you asked how the restrictions affected me.



Leaving aside the risk is the square root of sod all.
I'm putting nobody at risk that doesn't accept the risk. Every person I viist or visits me knows my attitude and tbh we all have the same attitude.



If I went to a niteclub tonight - who would be there that wasn't happy to accept the risk? tell me?



If I don't wear a mask in the supermarket who am I infecting?

Given the HSE state that you must be 15mins with a person to be a close contact and as I stated earlier there is , after 8 months, no infections from supermarkts despite them being open all the time. You'd' think hordes of staff would have died now from this deadly virus? but that hasn't happened.



why would I hide myself and my person for something I didn't believe in -cos the man on the telly told me ? :rolleyes:


Now I'm not unreasonable...if we had a better plan , some targets and timelines...I may suck it up. But we don't.



BTW come back next summer and call me selfish cos i won't take a rushed barely tested vaccine either....

You won't wear a mask for 10 minutes to save lives?

Libski

Deleted User wrote: »

And 1 person dead is better than 1000 in hardship.

Would you let your father die to save 100 businesses?

paw patrol

Libski wrote: »

I studied economics. I understand it. But I guess my view is fundamental - that life is more important than money.

Being dead is worse than being in hardship.

The median age of deaths are people over 82 at that age a fall or a heavy cold can kill them. It's not that people don't care it's that covid doesn't warrant the extreme reaction we are seeing and being ordered to comply with.

polesheep

Libski wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that you're high risk, but you're all the more reason why I feel the way I do. We need to protect people.

You don't seem to realise that people who are high risk rely even more on a properly functioning economy.

Libski

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are sadly mistaken. Half a million people are on PUP, at the height of the pandemic there was 1.25 million people surviving on partial or full financial support from the state.
So yes, quite a lot of futures, livelihoods and homes are at risk here. Just because it doesn’t negatively effect you doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone.

Housing was hard to access before the pandemic when we were at near full levels of employment, can you even imagine how many people are going to be excluded now?
How many will lose their homes because they can’t pay the mortgage they had to save for years for to get? Or how many renters are going to be evicted? This is going to have a massive impact on the already critical housing crisis.

There has to be a balance of interests, no one life is more important or more valuable than the next. It isn’t a case of saving one life for one livelihood, that’s completely over simplifying it.
It’s more a case of sacrificing a couple of hundred livelihoods and futures for maybe one life.

No, it's a case of what you consider more important - being alive and poor or being dead.

paw patrol

Libski wrote: »

You won't wear a mask for 10 minutes to save lives?

yet again - you aren't reading what I wrote.
whose life am I saving?
Im happy to debate but if you don't read what I write I can't help you

Libski

paw patrol wrote: »

The median age of deaths are people over 82 at that age a fall or a heavy cold can kill them. It's not that people don't care it's that covid doesn't warrant the extreme reaction we are seeing and being ordered to comply with.

You must wear a mask for 10 minutes vs they must die.

Crazy logic.

Libski

Libski wrote: »

Would you let your father die to save 100 businesses?

It is not my choice whether my father dies or not...

Right, It is time to turn the table on you.

If you were minister for finance and 10 people suffered from a very rare illness. Would you provide billions of funding to treat those 10 people? Knowing that so many other areas were going to suffer as a result?

Captain_Crash

Coybig_ wrote: »

How reliable is this testing?

I would imagine that the vast majority of the general population is getting tested once and done.

That reminds me, I forgot to ask if anyone else has heard of this.... A good friend of mine tested negative a couple of weeks ago, he was then called back in for a second test and tested negative a second time. Now he's been called back for a third test and isnt sure if he should bother going considering he's tested negative twice in a row.

Libski

polesheep wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that people who are high risk rely even more on a properly functioning economy.

The solution is to do something that is guaranteed to kill them?

Warped logic.

Libski

paw patrol wrote: »

yet again - you aren't reading what I wrote.
whose life am I saving?
Im happy to debate but if you don't read what I write I can't help you

You're saving the lives of the people whom you don't care about.

That's cold.

3xh

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

It is absolutely astonishing there are people who think like this, society really is f*cked.

So where is your solidarity and concern for us deplorables?

polesheep

Libski wrote: »

What if that death was yours? That's my question - your livelihood or life.

Ask the families of the people who take their life when they lose their livelihood just how important livelihood is. You speak as one who has no threat to their livelihood.

Libski

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not my choice whether my father dies or not...

Right, It is time to turn the table on you.

If you were minister for finance and 10 people suffered from a very rare illness. Would you provide billions of funding to treat those 10 people? Knowing that so many other areas were going to suffer as a result?

That's not the situation here.

polesheep

Libski wrote: »

I think the vast majority are in danger of neither.

So why the extreme measures?

Coybig_

Libski wrote: »

Would you let your father die to save 100 businesses?

I'd tell my father to stay inside if he was that worried about it, and to let the rest of the world get on with their lives.

We already know about the links between suicide and job loss. Between suicide and poverty. Between mental health and these things.

I'm quite sure my father would want other people at the beginning of their lives, to actually live their lives, rather than stop the world so he can get a few more years at the end of his.

Libski

polesheep wrote: »

Ask the families of the people who take their life when they lose their livelihood just how important livelihood is. You speak as one who has no threat to their livelihood.

You're comparing possible suicide to actual death.

That makes no sense.

Libski

Libski wrote: »

That's not the situation here.

You are concerned about your father and based on your posts, I imagine you'd gladly let lots of other people suffer to protect him.

Its ok that you are selfish.

But we do need our leaders to look at the bigger picture.