How would you feel if restrictions were lifted?

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

That's shifting the goalposts excess deaths does not mean the health service will be overwhelmed which is the main argument behind lockdowns. Also would missed health screenings for things like strokes, heart diesease and cancer and increased suicides not have something to do with the excess deaths?

Are you replying to a post other than the one you quoted?

paw patrol

kippy wrote: »

So what happens if more people catch it.

after over 38million recorded cases and over 45000 in ireland. I think we have more a good idea .


In the meantime, don't forget to submit your watchlist ..:pac:

Graham

kippy wrote: »

So what happens if more people catch it.

More people die unfortunately.

Something some posters are unnervingly happy to suggest doesn't matter.

kippy

paw patrol wrote: »

after over 38million recorded cases and over 45000 in ireland. I think we have more a good idea .


In the meantime, don't forget to submit your watchlist ..:pac:

Oh, its gone in!

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

More people die unfortunately.

Something some posters are unnervingly happy to suggest doesn't matter.

People die everyday. You'll die some day, as will I.

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

More people die unfortunately.

Something some posters are unnervingly happy to suggest doesn't matter.

We still don't know the long term effects. People who have recovered from the disease are reporting headaches, fatigue, swollen glands, nasal drip, chest pains. anxiety etc etc months later.

GT89

Graham wrote: »

More people die unfortunately.

Something some posters are unnervingly happy to suggest doesn't matter.

People are gonna die either way. 95% of people including myself are suffering mental health effects of lockdown so if I'm suffering from mental health issues that I did not have before this panic started I would imagine people who had mental health problems anyway may have been sent over the edge to suicide even if they problems were under control beforehand.

That's not to mention people who missed screenings for things like cancer, heart disease and strokes the real killers in Ireland. Do those people matter to you or is covid the only worth caring about to you?

bladespin

Graham wrote: »

More people die unfortunately.

Something some posters are unnervingly happy to suggest doesn't matter.

Not really, numbers now are huge but deaths are still relatively low, thankfully, it really depends on 'who' is catching it.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

People die everyday. You'll die some day, as will I.

not quite sure why you quoted me there weldoninhio

If that's some bizarre logic for removing precautions, it fails.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

People die everyday. You'll die some day, as will I.

In a public place?

Graham

bladespin wrote: »

Not really, numbers now are huge but deaths are still relatively low, thankfully, it really depends on 'who' is catching it.

So more people won't die if the virus continues to spread (which was the point I made).

gozunda

GT89 wrote: »

Ok but the argument anout lockdowns was never about preventing deaths it was supposed to be about preventing the collapse of society. I do not see evidence of collapsed society in Belarus.

GT89 wrote: »

Thats shifting the goalposts excess deaths does not mean the health service will be overwhelmed which is the main argument behind lockdowns. Also would missed health screenings for things like strokes, heart diesease and cancer and increased suicides not have something to do with the excess deaths?...

So which do you believe - preventing "collapse of society" or stopping 'health services been overwhelmed"??? You seem to have a hard job deciding which tbh.

I've never seen such Olympic standard switcerroo antics and half baked arguments against the reduction of infection rates my lifetime.

GT89 wrote: »

Where's the lockdown for that?

You are speaking about hunger. There is no shortage of food globally- just country level corruption and greed. Hunger is not contagious just in case you bizarrely think it is

GT89 wrote: »

Is this about keeping as many people alive as possible or preventing the health service from becoming overwhelmed for you?

Where health services are not overrun , more people stand a better chance of not dying by reason of access to a fully functioning ICU, available staff etc. Its not hard to understand


its truely amazing the only people apparently concerned about suicide rates and cancer screening services atm are those against any restrictions whatsover. Im sure that will make for a very interesting venn diagram ...

GT89

Graham wrote: »

So more people won't die if the virus continues to spread (which was the point I made).

How many people 1 person, 10 people, 100 people, 1000 people? Ok every death is a tragedy but it's not worth shutting a whole country and severly restricting peoples lives and destroying peoples lives.

circadian

The level of stupidity in these threads recently. **** me.

FlubberJones

If the restrictions were lifted I'd be surprised to start with but I suppose at some stage I would get concerned. Not really about getting sick with covid but more concerned with what happens if I get sick with something else and the hospitals are full that would be a p*sser.
So initally, I would be happy that finally free of the shackles... then inevitably thinking oh sh*t

weldoninhio

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

In a public place?

People die in public every day. Heart attacks, SADS, Brain bleeds, accidents. Death doesn't wait til you're in a hospital bed to take you.

bladespin

Graham wrote: »

So more people won't die if the virus continues to spread (which was the point I made).

More will die either way, that’s just a fact of life.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

People die in public every day. Heart attacks, SADS, Brain bleeds, accidents. Death doesn't wait til you're in a hospital bed to take you.

and?

Is there some sort of connection there?

Another suggestion we should forget about basic precautions?

weldoninhio

gozunda wrote: »

You are speaking about hunger. There is no shortage of food globally- just country level corruption and greed. Hunger is not contagious just in case you bizarrely think it is

If you're the main breadwinner (for want of a better word) and you can't afford food, you'll be hungry, and you can be sure as hell that will soon spread rapidly to your family who you couldn't provide for.

Graham

bladespin wrote: »

More will die either way, that’s just a fact of life.

It is.

Not to be confused with doing nothing about preventable deaths.

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

and?

Is there some sort of connection there?

Another suggestion we should forget about basic precautions?

Wash hands and keep socially distant and open up.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

Wash hands and keep socially distant and open up.

Fortunately you weren't elected so you don't get to make that call

Feel free to test that line on your friends

GT89

Graham wrote: »

It is.

Not to be confused with doing nothing about preventable deaths.

Many preventable deaths from road accidents so why don't we ban cars?

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

Fortunately you weren't elected so you don't get to make that call

I can make the call for myself. As can anyone else. Micheal being elected won't stop me from visiting friends and family for cans and chats.

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

Many preventable deaths from road accidents so why don't we ban cars?

explained to you every time you say it.

road accidents aren't exponentially contagious.

You are forgetful sometimes.

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

I can make the call for myself. As can anyone else. Micheal being elected won't stop me from visiting friends and family for cans and chats.

Yeah, you said

:rolleyes:

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

explained to you every time you say it.

road accidents aren't exponentially contagious.

You are forgetful sometimes.

So only deaths by contagious diseases matter now? :rolleyes: Are you any less dead if you die in a crash as compared to death with Covid?

GT89

Graham wrote: »

explained to you every time you say it.

road accidents aren't exponentially contagious.

You are forgetful sometimes.

Your arguing about preventable deaths. Surely banning cars would be a good move if you want to prevent preventable deaths?

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

Your arguing about preventable deaths. Surely banning cars would be a good move if you want to prevent preventable deaths?

Not really because it would be a stupid argument. I'm not sure there's a specific strawman forum anywhere on boards, maybe have a search.

FYI there are restrictions around the use of cars to reduce risks.

bladespin

Graham wrote: »

It is.

Not to be confused with doing nothing about preventable deaths.

Absolutely, but how many of theses deaths were actually preventable? Would they have died if they had contracted some other less scary virus like the flu? An 87 year old with underlying conditions wouldn’t fare too well with that either but where do we draw the line?