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

Penfailed

Boggles wrote: »

Just my opinion, really?

Not my fault these are the type of people dragged into the discussion and held up as bastions of truth.

I wouldn't be surprised if his family staged an intervention, I haven't heard anything from him since, shocker.

Anyway if he is going to abuse his (ex) standing to preach his dangerous rhetoric which will only result in more people dead, he is fair game.

Also the poster that brought him up basically called you and me a "Servile Fool".

I guess you are okay with that?

I've been called worse in fairness...

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

You said they were "a few weeks away".

No I didn't, please don't misquote me, you have no excuse there is a quote function which will capture what I said accurately.

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite. And the younger you are, the longer term it could be said to be. Which is why you'll see a lot of concern about the long-term effects of lockdown on, for example, children, where the IFR is thought to be about 0.002%

You know the pesky thing about children? They tend to have to live with others

Either way, we prioritized education and children in general in the Autumn at the determent of other sectors.

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

Also the poster that brought him up basically called you and me a "Servile Fool".

I guess you are okay with that?

They were my words and I never called Penfailed a servile fool.

OwenM

Boggles wrote: »

So what?

He clearly didn't have the capacity to perform his role.

I have no idea why anyone would champion someone with "ideas" that were psychopathic, particular a clinical director of a hospital group.

He resigned because he lost control of his faculties, and his position was no longer tenable.

Strange person to admire.

Not really, he has a very distinguished career. And most of his statements were made at a time when vaccines were 'a maybe', there was no guarantee that we would ever have a single vaccine. So a controlled herd immunity or Zero-Covid were the only two long term strategies.

Boggles

OwenM wrote: »

Not really, he has a very distinguished career.

TBF to him, we had people with far more distinguished careers coming out with more of the same nonsense.

They haven't been heard of either in months.

I think the lockdowns will end one way or another in 2021. Probably a combination of vaccines helping, financial collapse approaching and lack of public support. (Particularly outside Ireland)

A year or two from now, I think we’ll eventually stop with the daily reporting and mass testing. Eventually it will become normal to catch Covid and just take a few days off. No big deal.

We might even be able to report separately on Covid deaths and Covid related deaths.

completedit

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the lockdowns will end one way or another in 2021. Probably a combination of vaccines helping, financial collapse approaching and lack of public support. (Particularly outside Ireland)

A year or two from now, I think we’ll eventually stop with the daily reporting and mass testing. Eventually it will become normal to catch Covid and just take a few days off. No big deal.

We might even be able to report separately on Covid deaths and Covid related deaths.

This continues to be a bizarre and utterly contemptuous practice imo.

ujjjjjjjjj

Deleted User wrote: »

You said they were "a few weeks away".



Herd immunity isn't a viable option. It is the only viable option. What's at issue is how you achieve it.



Quite. And the younger you are, the longer term it could be said to be. Which is why you'll see a lot of concern about the long-term effects of lockdown on, for example, children, where the IFR is thought to be about 0.002% (or about ten times lower than flu). Or those in their twenties, where the IFR is thought to be about half that of flu.

Entirely agree on the herd immunity comment.....it is not only the only option it has been the only option from very early on in this crisis when it was clear the virus had spread globally. Combination of natural spread and or vaccination can give us herd immunity to a solid degree.

I am blue in the face saying this and no one including many of those who get airtime as experts (zero covid brigade) understand where we are - This virus is endemic now......

Think like we did before this virus about the flu.....every year it mutated a bit and some people got a dose each year and some died or got very sick. It's impact in recent years was never cataclysmic as we had lots of inbuilt immunity aided by some vaccination driven immunity but we accepted it was endemic and got on with it. Just have a look for example at flu deaths in the UK in 2015/16.....no one batted an eyelid as it was an accepted endemic virus which we were used to and dieing from a respiratory virus is nasty be it the flu or Covid but despite the many dieing from the flu that winter we weren't subjected to endless horror stories.

SARs-COV-2 is now endemic just like the flu and we have to accept that and move on. We are very lucky with this virus that it is only of significant danger to a small defined section of our population. So vaccinate that section of our population and move on. People will still be getting this virus and some dieing from it for decades to come just like the flu has been for hundreds of years.

Move on , accept and get on with life.

Over 50's as O'Leary suggested is a good line in the sand.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

This continues to be a bizarre and utterly contemptuous practice imo.

I remember Glynn was asked about it before. Of course he didn’t have information to hand but he did say that even if he did.. it might “send the wrong message”

I think we all know why that is.

landofthetree

We will be lockdown for months yet.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1359158409573130255

Same old bul****e. A revised plan that wont work.

No new vaccine supplies.

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember Glynn was asked about it before. Of course he didn’t have information to hand but he did say that even if he did.. it might “send the wrong message”

I think we all know why that is.

Do go on then........

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

Probably not, but that has very little to do with lockdowns.

People are not mindless lemmings, they won't willingly gather in sufficient numbers if a highly dangerous virus is spreading like wildfire in the community.

I’m not sure that you intended it, but this looks to be very much a subconscious form of U-turn on your part.

You are right, people react to the danger they perceive. They are not mindless lemmings. This is how and why many of the forecasts of utter cataclysm due to Covid have ended up wildly overcooked — there wasn’t enough of a regard in the estimations that peoples’ behaviour changes when they are threatened. There was a belief that only via government intervention could the moronic people be saved from themselves.

Yet, I note with some despair that notwithstanding your assertions that people are not “mindless lemmings” — you will still leap to defend many of the policies that assume that this is exactly what they are!

growleaves

46 weeks (and counting) of restrictions is already by far the biggest and most long-running response to a pandemic in human history.

Yet the months (and years) of this "response" keep on coming.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There was a belief that only via government intervention could the moronic people be saved from themselves.

And even at that it's not fool proof.

Woman twice broke visitor ban at Cork Covid ward and took selfies with infectious patient

completedit

Boggles wrote: »

Probably not, but that has very little to do with lockdowns.

People are not mindless lemmings, they won't willingly gather in sufficient numbers if a highly dangerous virus is spreading like wildfire in the community.

Bankruptcies in Sweden last spring, trebled for hotels and restaurants and almost doubled for retail.

There is financial pain whatever method you use, our method is to put businesses on "life support" which is a far better solution than the finality of bankruptcy IMO.

Yeah that's true. Think you might have written something like this before and take your point. Was going to add it in at the end of my original post.

But that was last Spring when Covid was a new phenomenon. We have much more data now.

Fundamentally though, the approach and how you view Covid as a 'danger' come down to your view on death and life expectancy. IMO, young people are being deprived, and at this point to a damaging extent, while the very old, who will die in one way or another are being prioritised above all else. In its bluntest way that is my take on the situation. I can't waiver from that because to me death is inevitable. That becomes evermore likely as you approach life expectancy.

My approach is very I, Robot like, where we conduct a cost benefit analysis and deduce that we should prioritise the young at the expense of the old. I realise these old people are someone's parents or grandparents.

Russman

Russman wrote: »

Do go on then........

Well it wouldn’t look great if a 94 year old was in a nursing home with dementia and advanced COPD with just possibly days/weeks to live and they tested positive for Covid 27 days before their death so go down as a Covid related death.

Who do you think is dying in nursing homes? Fit 40 year olds training for a marathon?

hynesie08

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The negative messaging from government is getting on my nerves TBH. That's nearly a month away.

How would you put a positive spin on it?

landofthetree

landofthetree wrote: »

We will be lockdown for months yet.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1359158409573130255

Same old bul****e. A revised plan that wont work.

No new vaccine supplies.

If they’re already saying it, it’s going to be the case regardless of numbers.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

And even at that it's not fool proof.

Woman twice broke visitor ban at Cork Covid ward and took selfies with infectious patient

Indeed, but any policy predicated on the presumption of total compliance is an idiotic policy. I doubt that you would disagree that there are only a minority of people who would show such blatant disregard for the dangers of Covid — while those who feel threatened by it can (for the most part) avoid being in situations where people do show blatant disregard.

The trend therefore is that those who feel threatened will act with at least some degree of diligence in avoiding that threat, and only a minority will show blatant disregard for that. The Christmas holidays — by any application of common sense — engendered carelessness in that regard. It’s that time of year where people really gather with older relatives in rooms full of family.

So it is a bit perplexing that on one hand, you will say that people are not generally mindless lemmings — while on the other hand you often appear to defend the more stringent forms of restriction (like 5km limits) because people are mindless lemmings.

hynesie08

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

"No decisions will be made on reopening until the review in early march".

Like I said, it's nearly a month away. We have no idea what numbers will be like by then. I don't see the value in saying we definitely won't be opening hairdressers.

Why give out false hope? We know from December they're not reopening until we're in single figures, why have them waiting on tenterhooks, buying stock, taking appointments for an announcement that isn't coming?

Boggles

completedit wrote: »

Fundamentally though, the approach and how you view Covid as a 'danger' come down to your view on death and life expectancy.

This is a fundamental mistake people make, you don't measure a pandemic solely by how many people die.

You measure it by how disruptive it would be to society as a whole and you compare that to the disruption cause by the methods of pandemic control.

Now people only see the disruption caused by the methods of pandemic control and rarely if every hypothesis the alternative, which TBH is understandably.

The realty is Western Capitalism didn't decide to crash itself for the craic, they crashed themselves because the potential alternative could be far more damaging.

Of course the absolute worse case scenario is we all get to live that alternative and find out.

landofthetree

The three stooges aka Varadkar,Martin and Ryan are just waiting to see what plan the Brits are going to announce.

The Government has not yet published its lockdown exit strategy. Boris Johnson has said he will set out a strategy for the “gradual and phased” easing of lockdown in the week beginning 22 February

.

We will copy it but have to add a few months to it due to our vaccine shortage.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Indeed, but any policy predicated on the presumption of total compliance is an idiotic policy. I doubt that you would disagree that there are only a minority of people who would show such blatant disregard for the dangers of Covid — while those who feel threatened by it can (for the most part) avoid being in situations where people do show blatant disregard.

The trend therefore is that those who feel threatened will act with at least some degree of diligence in avoiding that threat, and only a minority will show blatant disregard for that. The Christmas holidays — by any application of common sense — engendered carelessness in that regard. It’s that time of year where people really gather with older relatives in rooms full of family.

So it is a bit perplexing that on one hand, you will say that people are not generally mindless lemmings — while on the other hand you often appear to defend the more stringent forms of restriction (like 5km limits) because people are mindless lemmings.

The thing is, this all started with 1 person.

So it doesn't actually take that many to spoil the party for everyone.

Sanity_Saviour

Boggles wrote: »

Just my opinion, really?

Not my fault these are the type of people dragged into the discussion and held up as bastions of truth.

I wouldn't be surprised if his family staged an intervention, I haven't heard anything from him since, shocker.

Anyway if he is going to abuse his (ex) standing to preach his dangerous rhetoric which will only result in more people dead, he is fair game.

Also the poster that brought him up basically called you and me a "Servile Fool".

I guess you are okay with that?

I don't usually post on these threads but I'd be careful about posting this type of stuff, you come across as a bit unhinged.

I know you mean well and you have good intentions but I'd tone down this type of post so people don't think you are a bit of a loon

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

This is a fundamental mistake people make, you don't measure a pandemic solely by how many people die.

You measure it by how disruptive it would be to society as a whole and you compare that to the disruption cause by the methods of pandemic control.

Now people only see the disruption caused by the methods of pandemic control and rarely if every hypothesis the alternative, which TBH is understandably.

The realty is Western Capitalism didn't decide to crash itself for the craic, they crashed themselves because the potential alternative could be far more damaging.

Of course the absolute worse case scenario is we all get to live that alternative and find out.

Sweden had practically no restrictions for months and they’re grand.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No I didn't, please don't misquote me, you have no excuse there is a quote function which will capture what I said accurately.

Boggles wrote: »

What would you call a medical professional calling for herd immunity through infection when vaccines were weeks off approval?

"Weeks off approval".

So you're right. I misquoted you as saying "a few weeks". The direct quote allows for more than that.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden had practically no restrictions for months and they’re grand.

Grand is completely meaningless unless we know what your definition of 'grand' is.

Are you talking total deaths, deaths per 100,000, infections, hospitalisations, intensive care patients, economic indicators, more Christmas presents? Compared to neighbouring countries, Ireland, somewhere else?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

This is a fundamental mistake people make, you don't measure a pandemic solely by how many people die.

You measure it by how disruptive it would be to society as a whole and you compare that to the disruption cause by the methods of pandemic control.

Now people only see the disruption caused by the methods of pandemic control and rarely if every hypothesis the alternative, which TBH is understandably.

And yet every time someone brings up a country that has not used the same stringent measures in their pandemic response, you pluck a card from the deck to let us all know why they're not comparable.

While giving no such attention to the very real differences between us and the UK, who you use as an example of why things would have certainly been super really terribly bad if we hadn't locked down (despite the fact that the UK locked down for extended periods).

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Grand is completely meaningless unless we know what your definition of 'grand' is.

Are you talking total deaths, deaths per 100,000, infections, hospitalisations, intensive care patients, economic indicators, more Christmas presents? Compared to neighbouring countries, Ireland, somewhere else?

You read about Sweden on here and you’d swear a nuclear warhead was dropped on the country.

They have something like 12K deaths. In a country of 10M. With an elderly population in a global pandemic. Hardly the end of world is it?

They have even less excess deaths. And are mid table in terms of deaths per 100,000.

The reason we went into lockdown was based on models that showed huge numbers of deaths.

Sweden have proved that it won’t happen. Yet we still have people asking what would happen if we didn’t lockdown.

I have lots of Swedish friends as I worked on a Swedish team before. Trust me, they are happier than Irish people I speak to.

tdf7187

Penfailed wrote: »

If you are lauding the Daily Mail as 'free' media then I don't know what to say. They're free to print mistruths, blatant lies and populist shíte and are one of the reasons that the car crash that is Brexit happened.

This is the very definition of an ad hominem.

The article is from Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court judge. But that's not even the point. It doesn't matter who wrote the article, or where it was printed, it's about the issues he's raised and the arguments.

I wouldn't agree with the Daily Mail on many political issues, but it does a far, far better job on holding its government to account than the loathsome Irish Times and Pravda. And that's in spite of it being both a big and small 'c' Conservative paper. Only silly simpering virtue signalling nambie-pambies discount anything written by or for the Daily Mail because it holds some right wing editorial stances.