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

Kunta Kinte

facehugger99 wrote: »

The begrudgery is strong in this one.

Going by your posting history of your attacks on teachers,.healthcare workers etc you would know all about begrudgery and jealousy.

SnuggyBear

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. They have just killed a lot of people and tanked their economy anyway.

That said they have come in to line with restrictions finally as opinion polls turned.

They killed a lot of people? Most of their deaths came from nursing homes. Have the people who died in the irsh nursing homes been killed by our government?

Kunta Kinte

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

A significant number of people work hard to afford that stuff.

It’s a motivation to educate oneself and achieve as much as possible.

The mask is slipping though, jealousy of successful people has became very apparent throughout this crisis

The majority of it by those who never wanted restrictions with their constant moaning and caterwauling about the salaries of Tony Holohan, the members of NPHET, government ministers etc etc.

SnuggyBear

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

In the middle of a global pandemic? Fail.

That post was obviously a dig at that lifestyle. Fail.

Boggles

SnuggyBear wrote: »

They killed a lot of people? Most of their deaths came from nursing homes.

Are they not people?

SnuggyBear

Boggles wrote: »

Are they not people?

Can you answer the question I asked? Did the Irish government kill the people in our nursing homes seeing as thats what you are accausing Sweden of doing.

CalamariFritti

There is one simple reason why lockdowns are so popular with the political class and our public health advisors. And I cant believe that people refuse to see it.

Lockdown is the easy approach. The consensus approach. The 'its no ones fault' we're all in this together approach.

If we restrict and lock down the hell out of it and people still die then sure what else could we have done? We did all we could do. If it doesnt work and if there was someone to blame for something its conveniently the public. Compliance just not good enough. We didnt lock down hard enough. Some people ruin it for all of us.

Whereas if you tried something else - like shielding the vulnerable, daily testing, shielding hospitals, whatever, anything else - you'd actually take ownership and responsibility. And open yourself up to potential blame.

As if there was ever a choice...

Windmill100000

Deleted User wrote: »

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

A lot of people have campaigned against restrictions since last March. Not because they are dying to have a pint or get a 4 course Italian meal. Because they want to work. Need to work to provide for their families.

There is now half a million people out of work. That’s half a million struggling to pay rent, mortgages, loans, buy food etc. These people have been forgotten about by society. They are earning a maximum of 350 a week.

You’ll have to forgive them for not caring as much about a respiratory illness as you might. Easy to give money to charity when you have plenty. Look at the likes of Bono.

And the majority of pro restrictions posters that I have debated with have nearly all admitted that they are still earning full salary. That’s great for them.

But check out the harrowing scenes at your local food bank, if you know where it is. While it might sound, the economy collapsing would at least force us to open business again and some people can go back to work.

At least they’d have a fighting chance.

I have never stated people are campaigning to have a pint.

I know the rate of current unemployment, you have posted it on a regular basis and it is readily available online.

I believe in lockdown to suppress the spread of ths virus, which is the same reason many others do.

Forcing the collapse of the economy is going to harm far more people than are already struggling.

You say it may give people a fighting chance. That's one hell of a gamble to take in a bid to make a point.

Hmob

CalamariFritti wrote: »

There is one simple reason why lockdowns are so popular with the political class and our public health advisors. And I cant believe that people refuse to see it.

Lockdown is the easy approach. The consensus approach. The 'its no ones fault' we're all in this together approach.

If we restrict and lock down the hell out of it and people still die then sure what else could we have done? We did all we could do. If it doesnt work and if there was someone to blame for something its conveniently the public. Compliance just not good enough. We didnt lock down hard enough. Some people ruin it for all of us.

Whereas if you tried something else - like shielding the vulnerable, daily testing, shielding hospitals, whatever, anything else - you'd actually take ownership and responsibility. And open yourself up to potential blame.

As if there was ever a choice...

Lockdown is easier

You can draw up the plans on the back of an envelope in 5 minutes

Responsibility for enactment of lockdown is passed onto the public and anything goes wrong it's the public again to blame

Meanwhile politicians sit back and take it handy.A complex set of restrictions on the other hand would likely yield better results but the politicians would have be working hard continuously and like you said they'll take the rap if it goes wrong

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Whereas if you tried something else - like shielding the vulnerable, daily testing, shielding hospitals, whatever, anything else - you'd actually take ownership and responsibility. And open yourself up to potential blame.

We tried it, much like the Swedes it didn't work.

The idea that you can shield half the population whilst the other half just gets on with it is quite simply nonsense.

CalamariFritti

Boggles wrote: »

We tried it, much like the Swedes it didn't work.

The idea that you can shield half the population whilst the other half just gets on with it is quite simply nonsense.

What is nonsense first fo all is the idea that half the population are vulnerable.

Hector Savage

SnuggyBear wrote: »

They killed a lot of people? Most of their deaths came from nursing homes. Have the people who died in the irsh nursing homes been killed by our government?

No of course not, the Irish govt are not responsible for deaths in nursing homes due to them arresting people on their own swimming 5.1 KM from their house!!

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is nonsense first fo all is the idea that half the population are vulnerable.

I never said half the population is vulnerable.

The bonkers narrative is that anyone that is more vulnerable can simply be locked up without any interactions from anyone else is completely and utter nonsense.

10s of 1000s of people with cancer or recovering from cancer, tough no treatment, stay at home, etc.

Almost two thirds of the deaths from this wave have come from the community.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. They have just killed a lot of people and tanked their economy anyway.

That said they have come in to line with restrictions finally as opinion polls turned.
...

Boggles can you please answer these for me? Thanks.

"How did the Swedes 'tanked' their economy? What factors did you base that statement on?"

Windmill100000

Boggles wrote: »

We tried it, much like the Swedes it didn't work.

The idea that you can shield half the population whilst the other half just gets on with it is quite simply nonsense.

Exactly, how can you shield the elderly that need hands-on care? Not just those in nursing homes and hospitals but those that receive care at home from workers and family members. And how can you do it appropriately when the virus is running rampant in the community. These workers/family members are also in the community where they can pick it up, unbeknownst to them.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

Boggles can you please answer these for me? Thanks.

"How did the Swedes 'tanked' their economy? What factors did you base that statement on?"

Their economy contracted more than their closet neighbors and is projected to do worse in 2021.

12,000+ dead and almost 5000 in ICU.

Cost and Value.

Failed on both.

Boggles

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Exactly, how can you shield the elderly that need hands-on care? Not just those in nursing homes and hospitals but those that receive care at home from workers and family members. And how can you do it appropriately when the virus is running rampant in the community. These workers/family members are also in the community where they can pick it up, unbeknownst to them.

You can't.

And when the herd immunity loons were championing the idea back in the summer, when they were asked that question.

The answers were usually farce or more often belligerence.

They have since fúcked off. Thankfully.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Their economy contracted more than their closet neighbors and is projected to do worse in 2021.

12,000+ dead and almost 5000 in ICU.

Cost and Value.

Failed on both.

2.9% contraction is hardly tanking. Growth projections were revised from 4.1% to 3.0% for 2021. On top of that Swedish debt/GDP is 30% of that of Ireland.

You are talking some malarkey Boggles. Good luck to you.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

2.9% contraction is hardly tanking.

That's an estimate.

But still higher than the likes of Norway, with 12,000 more deaths.

Again Cost and Value?

Norway is the template not Sweden.

SnuggyBear

Boggles wrote: »

is projected to do worse in 2021.

Thats a projection

walus

Boggles wrote: »

That's an estimate.

But still higher than the likes of Norway, with 12,000 more deaths.

Again Cost and Value?

Norway is the template not Sweden.

You can pick and chose whatever template you wish that suits your narrow perspective.

Widely recognized benchmark is 7.3% average contraction for the eurozone as per ECB guidelines.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

You can pick and chose whatever template you wish that suits your narrow perspective.

Picking their nearest neighbors?



You think when all this is over and the costs (not just financial) are counted Sweden will be compared with Spain/Uk or with Norway?

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Picking their nearest neighbors?



You think when all this is over and the costs (not just financial) are counted Sweden will be compared with Spain/Uk or with Norway?

If you counting it all start factoring deaths from drug and alcohol abuse, suicides, domestic violence, deferred medical procedures and patient screening, and mental health issues from loneliness and isolation that Ireland will inevitably incur and Sweden have done their best to spare their nation from.

Again, it is a matter of perspective. Yours is so narrow that it actually hurts to read what you say.

Boggles

walus wrote: »

If you counting it all start factoring deaths from drug and alcohol abuse, suicides, domestic violence, deferred medical procedures and patient screening, and mental health issues from loneliness and isolation that Ireland will inevitably incur and Sweden have done their best to spare their nation from.

You have comparable data on all that?

Tap it up, I'll gladly take a look.

Bryan Dobson trying to draw blood from a stone with Heather Humphreys on Radio 1:

"There are nearly half a million people on PUP, will this payment be extended beyond March?"

"We are committed to having protections in place for those who lost employment through no fault of their own, they will not be left behind."

"Minister, how long can the PUP be sustainable with tens of billions added to public expenditure. Will that necessitate easing of restrictions by summer?"

"We are committed to having protections in place for those who lost employment through no fault of their own, they will not be left behind."

Dobbo opted out of a third attempt with the wind-up toy, cutting the interview short as persisting would give a dog the scour.

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

That's an estimate.

But still higher than the likes of Norway, with 12,000 more deaths.

Again Cost and Value?

Norway is the template not Sweden.

yes comparing the economy of the 8th biggest Oil and 3rd largest gas producer in the world (Norway) to that of a country with no oil or gas seems apt.

probably not the fairest comparison

Boggles

paw patrol wrote: »

yes comparing the economy of the 8th biggest Oil and 3rd largest gas producer in the world (Norway) to that of a country with no oil or gas seems apt.

probably not the fairest comparison

You are probably right, I didn't factor in the oil crisis caused by the pandemic.

walus

Boggles wrote: »

You have comparable data on all that?

Tap it up, I'll gladly take a look.

I'll do that when I have that ready for you.

SheepsClothing

On the suicide front, good news out of the states:

https://twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1357765466601775106

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

You are probably right, I didn't factor in the oil crisis caused by the pandemic.

what nonsense are you spouting? Id get more coherent comments from my neighbours dog.