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

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

It's not complicated at all.

Are 1449 deaths per million somehow better than 640?


Would you prefer we had more than double the number of deaths even if it meant the additional deaths were only 'non-vulnerable'.

Come on, yes or no.

Stop fluffing around it.

Of course less deaths pro rata population would be better

Italy had less deaths pro rata population

So we likely both agree yes less death’s are better and we can now agree Italy had less deaths

end of the road

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.

you finally get it.
support or not for restrictions isn't as a whole based on one's financial situation.
glad we got there in the end.

walus

robfowler78 wrote: »

I’ve seen people post that excess deaths are the same as pervious years and then I’ve seen people post that thousands of excess deaths have occurred. Were would be the best place to get that type of information now that we have a full years data.

I have to admit I’ve been guilty of flip flopping and listening to people like Ivor Cummins and then listening to people like Sam Mcconkey and have to say they are all as bad as each other for biased information or maybe not biased but contradictory so I’d like to find somewhere like the CSO or something that gives a more official number if you know what I mean .

euromomo.eu

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong...are you saying that because they are elderly, it doesn't count or doesn't really matter? That's how it reads. Like I said, I'm open to correction.

I’d really like to have a mature discussion without outrageous claims like above.

Nobody has said or implied such and it’s childish to suggest so

The poster was exposing the mechanics behind the demographics the virus effects, and it wasn’t difficult to follow his point.

Back we go though

Penfailed

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.

Of course it does. There's a few on this thread that don't think you should be allowed an opinion (or your opinion isn't valid) if you are in a secure job or are earning more on the PUP than you would normally.

Windmill100000

Lundstram wrote: »

Italy relaxing restrictions today, purely down to pressure from protestors and businesses defying rules by opening up. Great to see.

And this from a country that suffered the most.

There's no free €350 to sit on your arse to be had in Italy.

The Irish were bought.

So you are saying you disagree with those out of work being paid a payment to help them with their rent, mortgages, debts, and everything else?

If they are sitting on their arse it's because that's what they are doing as per guidelines and are out of work.

That 350 has likely helped many manage rent with sweet fa left over. Working people generally don't live in squalor. They have rent to pay, and rent/mortgages that require more than 350 a week.

Very easy to sit back and sling insults when you are working several jobs and saving loads isnt it?

Without that payment where would they be? Even more financial problems, stress, depression?

Penfailed

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Of all the cohort of anti restrictions posters on here the irony of you in particular accusing others of selective posting and of refusing to answer questions without engaging in deflection tactics is breathtaking. To quote your regular phrase I`m "speechless" at your complete lack of self awareness.

Damn.

FintanMcluskey

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Of all the cohort of anti restrictions posters on here the irony of you in particular accusing others of selective posting and of refusing to answer questions without engaging in deflection tactics is breathtaking. To quote your regular phrase I`m "speechless" at your complete lack of self awareness.

I’ve never seen a poster to cause such consternation. You need to put him on ignore. He’s really getting the better of you and the indirect attacks on him don’t reflect well on you.

I see you continue to use terms like anti-restrictions what do you consider yourself? Pro-lockdown I would assume?

robfowler78

walus wrote: »

euromomo.eu

Thanks I’ll give that a look

Kunta Kinte

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Great, great news from Italy.

Netherlands to follow soon I'd guess.

Why do you think Holland will soon follow? Because of the actions of a group of moronic scumbags that threw missiles at police before going on to wreck and loot a shop that you were cheerleading during the week?

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Of course less deaths pro rata population would be better

Two steps forward.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Italy had less deaths pro rata population

One step back

Italy has 1449 deaths per million
Ireland had 640 deaths per million

To simplify.

1449 is more than 640.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The poster is “considering” moving home, not already in the process.

Is it essential to consider moving now?

Be careful giving out advice that may be unlawful

If they're only considering it, then they're not doing anything. Therefore they're not doing anything illegal. If they are moving, that's essential. Nothing illegal there either.

Kunta Kinte

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’ve never seen a poster to cause such consternation. You need to put him on ignore. He’s really getting the better of you and the indirect attacks on him don’t reflect well on you.

I see you continue to use terms like anti-restrictions what do you consider yourself? Pro-lockdown I would assume?

He is getting the better of me? How do you make that out? BTW it`s telling that you should quickly jump in to G&L`s defence again. Although I suppose I should have expected it considering he is a "special close friend" of yours.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I’d really like to have a mature discussion without outrageous claims like above.

Nobody has said or implied such and it’s childish to suggest so

The poster was exposing the mechanics behind the demographics the virus effects, and it wasn’t difficult to follow his point.

Back we go though

So, I post that I'm open to correction...but you call it 'outrageous' and 'childish' without correction. You say it wasn't difficult to follow his point...yet I had an obvious difficulty hence my question.

On you go though.

AlekSmart

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If it isn't I hope they kept the receipts from the vaccine suppliers that we pumped billions in to.

Interesting sidebar point.

Given the ongoing Legal situation surrounding earlier vaccine programmes,I am focusing on the issue of Major Pharmacutical Corporations being fully indemnified by States,or more correctly by Taxpayers themselves.

Has there been any "modelling" of prospective financial costs to the Greater Public,of potential Court Awards should the indemnities be called into play ?

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1104/1175953-vaccine-case/

Senior Counsel Dermot Gleeson told the High Court the State and the vaccine makers had "failed in their truth telling obligations" and that the vaccine had not been properly tested on children.

He said adverse reactions were seven to eight times more prevalent in Europe than in Canada because a different adjuvant or booster product had been used here.

He also said that under the terms of the advance purchase of the vaccine, GSK was given indemnity by the HSE and other health authorities around Europe and was also allowed to dictate how the HSE were to defend any potential cases including being prevented from admitting liability.

Mr Gleeson said some years after the vaccination programme it was concluded that there was a 13 fold risk of narcolepsy in those vaccinated.

Irrespective of positions for/against Lockdown et al,I suggest that some more detailed explaination regarding the Indemnities now in place for the Covid Vaccinations would be a positive thing ?

Irish Steve

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a load of scutter to be honest.

I’m just asking for solid proof what’s been done is cost effective

No, let's be clear here, you did nothing of the sort, when challenged about Covid deaths, you chose to try and yet again raise the old saw of dying of covid or dying with covid, to yet again deflect from the issue of a lost cause.

Seweryn

Graham wrote: »

Italy has 1449 deaths per million
Ireland had 640 deaths per million

To simplify.

1449 is more than 640.

Look at this this way:

General annual average death rates:

Italy: 10.7 k deaths per million
Ireland: 6.4 k deaths per million

These are total annual average numbers, "pandemic" or not. Irish population is younger and therefore the death rate per population is lower. Simple demographics.

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

If they're only considering it, then they're not doing anything. Therefore they're not doing anything illegal. If they are moving, that's essential. Nothing illegal there either.

Where did you see that moving house is essential?

I would be wary of encouraging people to disregard public health advice

froog

glad to see the lies in this thread starting to be exposed regularly with hard facts.

FintanMcluskey

froog wrote: »

glad to see the lies in this thread starting to be exposed regularly with hard facts.

You keep posting these arbitrary comments with nothing whatsoever to support it?

What exactly are you talking about?

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You keep posting these arbitrary comments with nothing whatsoever to support it?

What exactly are you talking about?

Maybe he can provide the evidence that lockdown “easily” prevented 50M deaths.

Still waiting on that.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Where did you see that moving house is essential?

I would be wary of encouraging people to disregard public health advice

Where did you see that it isn't?

You're a great advocate for wanting the government to ignore public health advice and, in turn, the rest of the population...

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

You're a great advocate for wanting the government to ignore public health advice and, in turn, the rest of the population...

That’s a completely unjustified lie.

Not your first either

Fair play to the Italians.
A country that actually appear to be closer to “All in it together “ than any other country.

Their people obviously aren’t comfortable leaving 20% of their workforce on peanuts.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe he can provide the evidence that lockdown “easily” prevented 50M deaths.

Still waiting on that.

the evidence that lock down prevented deaths has already been posted plenty of times.
as we know though, you don't do evidence.
twisting and misrepresenting on the other hand.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

Two steps forward.



One step back

Italy has 1449 deaths per million
Ireland had 640 deaths per million

To simplify.

1449 is more than 640.

We better leave it Graham.

You have served only to prove my point about a deficiency in the population of understanding the numbers behind the statists.

We can though conclude by saying a citizen over 65 was at a higher risk of dying from Covid in Ireland

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s a completely unjustified lie.

Not your first either

Oh, you don't want to ease restrictions now? You appear confused...not for the first time either.

FintanMcluskey

end of the road wrote: »

the evidence that lock down prevented deaths has already been posted plenty of times.
as we know though, you don't do evidence.
twisting and misrepresenting on the other hand.

Surely you can link to Sweden having a higher death rate than the rest of Europe?

You must have information to back up your claim?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play to the Italians.
A country that actually appear to be closer to “All in it together “ than any other country.

Their people obviously aren’t comfortable leaving 20% of their workforce on peanuts.

they will be back in lock down soon so don't get too excited.

FintanMcluskey

Penfailed wrote: »

Where did you see that it isn't?

You're a great advocate for wanting the government to ignore public health advice and, in turn, the rest of the population...

Penfailed wrote: »

Oh, you don't want to ease restrictions now? You appear confused...not for the first time either.

You initially made a staggering claim that I was advocating people to ignore public health advice

You then tried to support your preposterous claim by alluding to me wanting to ease restrictions now. There is a huge difference and that’s a massive leap and a completely unnecessary attack on my credibility