Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

copeyhagen

i like the Italian approach

Ginger n Lemon

Lundstram wrote: »

Note "the public health experts".

Public health experts don't give a sh1t about your job or how you're going to feed your family.

Great to see Italy are moving on and not letting this "deadly virus" control their lives.

I wonder if public health experts understand what hunger and poverty does to ones health.



I am joking ofcourse they dont. They are on 6 digit salary, defined benefit pension and secure jobs.

FintanMcluskey

hynesie08 wrote: »

Italy

"Are cases going down?
Not really but they're not going up
Good enough"

Yeah, that's the example we should follow, I mean Italy have played a blinder this year....

Didn’t they have less vulnerable deaths than Ireland

Deaths in Ireland among the over-65s were the third highest in Europe relative to population. The rate to early October in Ireland was 2,359 deaths per million. Only Belgium and England/Wales had higher rates of deaths

That was the problem with many outlets of media in this country, they used a vulnerability of understanding demographics to portray an alternate reality

copeyhagen

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Didn’t they have less vulnerable deaths than Ireland



That was the problem with many outlets of media in this country, they used a vulnerability of understanding demographics to portray an alternate reality

funny part was there were countless people patting each other on the back on these forums saying 'thank god for lockdowns, we protected the vulnerable"

errrr, ****ing what

Graham

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Lets stay in level 5 until June to be safe.

Not what I'd advocate for if we can get the numbers under control.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Didn’t they have less vulnerable deaths than Ireland



That was the problem with many outlets of media in this country, they used a vulnerability of understanding demographics to portray an alternate reality

88,000+ deaths in Italy. You might want to consider an alternative poster-boy.

Graham

Lundstram wrote: »

Public health experts don't give a sh1t about your job

quite right too. The clue is in the job title.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

88,000+ deaths in Italy. You might want to consider an alternative poster-boy.

Thanks for proving my point

I could not have asked for a better post to support my claim

Lundstram

Graham wrote: »

88,000+ deaths in Italy. You might want to consider an alternative poster-boy.

They've more over 65s than any other country in Europe.

Less of the dramatics.

Graham

Lundstram wrote: »

They've more over 65s than any other country in Europe.

Less of the dramatics.

I quoted a fact.

That you find it dramatic speaks volumes.

Ginger n Lemon

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point

I could not have asked for a better post to support my claim

I see what you did.

Brilliant

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

One wouldn't resolutely defend lockdowns if they didn't have a job to go to everyday. And saving up quite a wedge of money. The faux concern is rather transparent, don't buy into such a hollow narrative.

I defend restrictions because I believe they save people's lives. It's as simple as that. I have no ulterior motive.

I do have a job to go to, but it's a fairly run of the mill retail job and I work less hours now than I did before this kicked off. To say that I have benefited financially is totally and absolutely false. Most weeks, I earn less than the PUP.

I had to laugh at the suggestion that the reason I defend restrictions is because I'm saving "a big wedge". I'd be willing to bet that in actual fact you are still getting more into your hand each week than I am.

If I may so, your posts seem incredibly embittered and rather than engaging in meaningful discussion you have to resort to florid but essentially cheap personal attacks. I think it's totally unnecessary to be honest.You can keep insulting me if you want, but you're insulting the idea you have of me in your head, rather than a person who exists in reality.

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Didn’t they have less vulnerable deaths than Ireland

I have no idea what a "vulnerable death" is but.

But Italy is worse the USA for mortality and it looks like they want to pass out the Brits with their new strategy.

Holding the Italians up as a bastion of stability and a blue print we should follow is next level dangerously stupid.

Lundstram

Graham wrote: »

I quoted a fact.

That you find it dramatic speaks volumes.

You quoted a number without explaining that number.

But I'm sure the fact they're the oldest population in Europe didn't make any difference.

Anyway, I hope other countries follow Italy now. Let the scared stay at home under their beds, let the rest of us live.

Ginger n Lemon

Arghus wrote: »

I defend restrictions because I believe they save people's lives. It's as simple as that. I have no ulterior motive.

I do have a job to go to, but it's a fairly run of the mill retail job and I work less hours now than I did before this kicked off. To say that I have benefited financially is totally and absolutely false. Most weeks, I earn less than the PUP.

I had to laugh that the reason I defend restrictions is because I'm saving "a big wedge". I'd be willing to bet that in actual fact you are still getting more into your hand each week than I am.

If I may so your posts seem incredibly embittered and rather than engaging in meaningful discussion you have to resort to florid but essentially cheap personal attacks. I think it's totally unnecessary to be honest.You can keep insulting me if you want, but you're insulting the idea you have of me in your head, rather than a person who exists in reality.

Why didnt you say so earlier? it explains a lot of things.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

I quoted a fact.

That you find it dramatic speaks volumes.

You quoted a fact alright.

While not understanding what the numbers actually represented.

A citizen over 65 was better protected from Covid in Italy than the equivalent citizen in Ireland.

hynesie08

I've been laid off since March, still support restrictions. I'm sure someone will come along in a minute to call me a liar.

Boggles

Lundstram wrote: »

They've more over 65s than any other country in Europe.

The very reason they need to be cautious so.

Graham

The Italian press appear to have their own concerns

According to La Repubblica, an intelligence dossier delivered to outgoing prime minister Giuseppe Conte stated that the daily tally of new positive cases has been underestimated by 40-50 percent.

"The total number of infected people is underestimated due to the drop in the number of tests which occurred in mid-November 2020", the document reportedly stated.

The dossier also said current data was unreliable, meaning that the epidemiological curve may not be going down as much as Ministry of Health data shows.

Italy's Higher Health Institute (Istituto Superiore di Sanità, or ISS) did not rule out the possibility that the data may be wrong.

Lundstram

hynesie08 wrote: »

I've been laid off since March, still support restrictions. I'm sure someone will come along in a minute to call me a liar.

€350 pw.. restrictions are needed, lads.

€100 pw.. you're protesting.

You were bought.

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea what a "vulnerable death" is but.

But Italy is worse the USA for mortality and it looks like they want to pass out the Brits with their new strategy.

Holding the Italians up as a bastion of stability and a blue print we should follow is next level dangerously stupid.

A vulnerable death is a person over 65 who died with Covid.

The age group where nearly all deaths occur.

The vulnerable age group.

The group of citizens who were safer in Italy than in Ireland.

Up until early October 2020 at least

Arghus

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Why didnt you say so earlier? it explains a lot of things.

I'm glad you read that far at least.

Graham

Lundstram wrote: »

€350 pw.. restrictions are needed, lads.

€100 pw.. you're protesting.

You were bought.

Make your mind up.

You've spent the last few week blathering on about financial suffering and now you're complaining about financial supports.

I'm not sure you know what you want, you're just stomping your feet about everything now.

Lundstram

hynesie08 wrote: »

I've been laid off since March, still support restrictions. I'm sure someone will come along in a minute to call me a liar.

I still have two jobs and we were never as busy. We can work any amount of hours we want these days. I'm saving a silly amount of money each week now.

I still don't support these restrictions.

Works both ways.

ShadowTech

Idbatterim wrote: »

This government, like any of the ones we have had for the past few decades are a total disgrace! I'll give them one thing though, they were totally screwed either way with the xmas decision, can you imagine Christmas being cancelled totally, after the nine months of the harsh restrictions we had?

Say they lock down very strict over xmas, and we would never have known that this surge sould have got to the extent it did. I hate political weakness and cowardice , but I'll give them somewhat of a pass on this decision...

Many of the deaths were likely people on deaths door and many are probably more humane than living. Not that politicians or the media could touch that...

What I don't understand about the situation with Christmas is the government's strategy leading up to it. They put the entire country in Level 3++ for one week then bowed to pressure to move to a lockdown (sorry, Level 5-... what a useless scale) for six week. This created huge demand for basic services and unbelievable demand for basic public life. Then they opened virtually everything around Christmas and removed the distance restrictions that were deterring at least some people from traveling.

Suddenly everyone who needed to buy "non-essential" items were out at the same time as Christmas shopping was taking place. At the same time people were traveling more, socialising more in restaurants and in homes and knowing that the government had already planned another lockdown in January it all had to be squeezed into a few weeks. These decisions encouraged a frenzy of activity that caused the rapid spread we saw.

Honestly, I don't understand why the government made the decisions it did. It's as if no one making decisions understands basic human nature and it's really depressing to believe that everyone involved in the decision-making is that clueless and inept.

The cynical part of me thinks that it was purposeful to justify a lengthy lockdown while vaccines are being distributed but that's entering into the realm of conspiracy theory and frankly "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

hynesie08

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

A vulnerable death is a person over 65 who died with Covid.

The age group where nearly all deaths occur.

The vulnerable age group.

The group of citizens who were safer in Italy than in Ireland.

Up until early October 2020 at least

Italy had over 70000 deaths of people in that age range, even if every Irish death was over 65, those numbers don't add up.....

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The group of citizens who were safer in Italy than in Ireland.

Up until early October 2020 at least

Vague.

Show your numbers, maybe dispense with the arbitrary nonsensical cut off points.

Boggles

Lundstram wrote: »

I still have two jobs and we were never as busy. We can work any amount of hours we want these days. I'm saving a silly amount of money each week now.

I still don't support these restrictions.

I'm alright Jack.

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Arghus are you suggesting we should have been in level 5 lockdown from October to March? Seeing how you think we were wrong the "relax our restrictions"...

I do wonder, do you really think people will live like hermits to keep others safe? The very fact that cases go up once restrictions are relaxed - suggests not.

Arghus wrote: »

I'm glad you read that far at least.

Arghus care to answer?

Or you are on selective posting lately?

hynesie08

Lundstram wrote: »

I still have two jobs and we were never as busy. We can work any amount of hours we want these days. I'm saving a silly amount of money each week now.

I still don't support these restrictions.

Works both ways.

I'm happy for you, I'm not the one saying job = pro restrictions, no job = open up though......