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

Monster249

TonyMaloney wrote: »

It's a monumental ask, but we should never lose sight of the significant upside to lockdown as vaccines are going in to arms - hundreds or possibly thousands of lives will be saved, and a huge number of people will be spared a significant illness.

Plus it would also be nice to have a functioning health service and for kids to be able to get an education (hopefully).

The downsides are absolutely horrendous, and the burden is not evenly distributed. I get that.

But if we simply give in to the downsides we'll lose all of the upsides. There is no good solution to the predicament we find ourselves in.
Or at least I've yet to read one, here or anywhere else.

The solution is open up as planned and deal with the death. That's it. There has to be balance to this, we cannot lockdown indefinitely just to protect people.

RobitTV

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The selfish side are using the exact same emotive arguments as this time last year too but with added conspiracy theory.

'Selfish side' - That's an interesting viewpoint, but how did you come to this conclusion?

There is a stark difference in disagreeing with the lockdown measures and disobeying the rules that are currently placed in law.

Multipass

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://extra.ie/2021/03/14/news/irish-news/ring-of-steel-planned-ahead-of-st-patricks-day-lockdown-protests

Up to 2,500 gardai are to be deployed at checkpoints across the city to prevent any protests happening for St.Patricks Day. Guess it'll only be local people then at them, looks hard to see many people outside Dublin getting to the city centre with the scale of operations planned to be put in place to prevent it.

Large protests are planned at RTE Lands in Donnybrook, Herbert Park in Donnybrook and the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin 1.

Yet the Gardai are not investigating the large wedding and reception that took place in Galway recently. Agenda driven policing.

Kermit.de.frog

Monster249 wrote: »

The solution is open up as planned and deal with the death. That's it. There has to be balance to this, we cannot lockdown indefinitely just to protect people.

Wanna bet?

Hole in your argument is those who flout or ignore the rules. We need tougher enforcement if progress is to resume so we can get to the place everyone wants to get to.

UDAWINNER

normanoffside wrote: »

People like you probably said the same thing about the Irish that emigrated during the famine.

'Why don't you just stay here and starve like the rest of us'.

Funny thing is she's englidh afaik:)

walus

TonyMaloney wrote: »

It's a monumental ask, but we should never lose sight of the significant upside to lockdown as vaccines are going in to arms - hundreds or possibly thousands of lives will be saved, and a huge number of people will be spared a significant illness.

Plus it would also be nice to have a functioning health service and for kids to be able to get an education (hopefully).

The downsides are absolutely horrendous, and the burden is not evenly distributed. I get that.

But if we simply give in to the downsides we'll lose all of the upsides. There is no good solution to the predicament we find ourselves in.
Or at least I've yet to read one, here or anywhere else.

What is that great benefit of lockdown you are on about?

Graces7

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Wtf

As in "only rats would desert a sinking ship" Read back to the original posts? I thought everyone knew that expression.,. It is a metaphor. Not literal.

As in it is far better to stay and save the ship. ie Ireland.

Over and out! :rolleyes:

FintanMcluskey

Graces7 wrote: »

As in "only rats would desert a sinking ship" Read back to the original posts? I thought everyone knew that expression.,. It is a metaphor. Not literal.

As in it is far better to stay and save the ship. ie Ireland.

Over and out! :rolleyes:

Grace this was never about the greater good.

It’s was always about protecting vulnerable citizens, which knowingly came at a cost of sacrificing many opportunities for the younger generation

corcaigh07

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Wanna bet?

Hole in your argument is those who flout or ignore the rules. We need tougher enforcement if progress is to resume so we can get to the place everyone wants to get to.

Yea, just for supply runs, :P

ypres5

Graces7 wrote: »

As in "only rats would desert a sinking ship" Read back to the original posts? I thought everyone knew that expression.,. It is a metaphor. Not literal.

As in it is far better to stay and save the ship. ie Ireland.

Over and out! :rolleyes:

brilliant you stay and save the sinking ship so im sure martin and co will give you a pat on the back for it

TonyMaloney

Monster249 wrote: »

The solution is open up as planned and deal with the death. That's it. There has to be balance to this, we cannot lockdown indefinitely just to protect people.

Well it's not just death. It's significant illness too.
And it will occupy our health service almost entirely, leading to a large rise in mortality for other illnesses.

On the upside, some will experience a partial return to normality. Bills can be paid, life will resume for some.

But it's not a great plan, monster. It would be quite a dark chapter in our history. We'd be saying, despite the rollout of vaccines, that we can no longer endure the economic costs and so many lives must be ruined.

theballz

These people don’t consider trans people enough when they talk about vaccinations, herd immunity, etc. basically I agree that this is hate speech because it doesn’t mention trans people

JDxtra

Lockdowns are like antibiotics. Use them too much, and they lose their effectiveness. The government just need to accept this now and stop beating us all with a stick.

We’re not in prison and we're not robots. We need to get out and about and live our lives. It’s been a bleak year and a terrible winter and people have just had enough.

Graham

JDxtra wrote: »

Lockdowns are like antibiotics. Use them too much, and they lose their effectiveness.

Same applies if you don't finish the course as directed.

TonyMaloney

walus wrote: »

What is that great benefit of lockdown you are on about?

I literally listed them in the following lines.

Fewer death, less severe illness, functioning hospitals, kids can get an education.

Maybe it's just me, but I consider them upsides

CalamariFritti

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I literally listed them in the following lines.

Fewer death, less severe illness, functioning hospitals, kids can get an education.

Maybe it's just me, but I consider them upsides

So can you you say hand on heart that you're confident the benefits outweigh the negatives?

And I dont want to hear 'if people only adhered to xyz'. I'm not talking about wishful thinking or potential scenarios. I'm talking about 1 year in and the actual situation as it presents itself today.

UDAWINNER

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Grace this was never about the greater good.

It’s was always about protecting vulnerable citizens, which knowingly came at a cost of sacrificing many opportunities for the younger generation

I don't wish to be rude but do you have parents, elderly relatives or anyone in the vunerable category who are alive as you seem to say it's a bad thing they were protected. A society is meant to look out for the vunerable not just people who give out because they can' have drink, a haircut or a feckin foreign holiday for a while

JDxtra

Graham wrote: »

Same applies if you don't finish the course as directed.

I did, but this is a repeat prescription.

walus

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I literally listed them in the following lines.

Fewer death, less severe illness, functioning hospitals, kids can get an education.

Maybe it's just me, but I consider them upsides

Fewer deaths? You know that science has failed to find a proof confirming that, right?

Less severe illness? How so?

Kids can get an education? Thanks to lockdown? In the old normal education used to be called a right not a benefit.

TonyMaloney

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So can you you say hand on heart that you're confident the benefits outweigh the negatives?

I think so, yeah.

There are shared negatives either way. Opening up would obviously improve the prospects of many businesses, but it wouldn't be a return to 2019.
There are a lot of people, like me, who would not partake in any of it until it's safe to do so. Whether that's because they're vulnerable, or they want to protect the vulnerable.

Many businesses would likely find that even though they can now operate again, they no longer have a viable business because they don't have enough customers.

growleaves

Graces7 wrote: »

As in "only rats would desert a sinking ship" Read back to the original posts? I thought everyone knew that expression.,. It is a metaphor. Not literal.

As in it is far better to stay and save the ship. ie Ireland.

Over and out! :rolleyes:

Perhaps if restrictionists stop blowing holes in the hull of the ship it will be easier to save it later on?

TonyMaloney

walus wrote: »

Fewer deaths? You know that science has failed to find a proof confirming that, right?

Less severe illness? How so?

Kids can get an education? Thanks to lockdown? In the old normal education used to be called a right not a benefit.

Yes. Fewer deaths. There are vaccines going into arms as we speak. That also helps on the severe illness front too.

walus

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Yes. Fewer deaths. There are vaccines going into arms as we speak. That also helps on the severe illness front too.

I’m not talking about vaccines. You said that there are upsides to lockdown, and that included fewer deaths.

So what is the upside of a lockdown?

SnuggyBear

Graces7 wrote: »

As in "only rats would desert a sinking ship" Read back to the original posts? I thought everyone knew that expression.,. It is a metaphor. Not literal.

As in it is far better to stay and save the ship. ie Ireland.

Over and out! :rolleyes:

Save the ship by being unemployed?

Graces7

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Grace this was never about the greater good.

It’s was always about protecting vulnerable citizens, which knowingly came at a cost of sacrificing many opportunities for the younger generation

Not "sacrificing"; simply delaying. And covid is to blame for that. Not any policy.

It wlil take time and patience but the opportunities will still be there for the younger ones who after all have time on their side .

And yes it was and is about the greater good. In the real sense of that phrase. Any decent country would do the same. Protecting the old and disabled it a tenet of every civilised country and done willingly in a situation like this

As most folk have done, thankfully, without any grumbling, and God bless them!

Whatsisname

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I think so, yeah.

There are shared negatives either way. Opening up would obviously improve the prospects of many businesses, but it wouldn't be a return to 2019.
There are a lot of people, like me, who would not partake in any of it until it's safe to do so. Whether that's because they're vulnerable, or they want to protect the vulnerable.

Many businesses would likely find that even though they can now operate again, they no longer have a viable business because they don't have enough customers.

I would imagine you'd be in the minority.

Pubs and restaurants are booked out for months here in the UK.

Beer gardens sold out for months as English pubs count the days to April reopening

When the Birmingham restaurant, Craft, started to take bookings on 24 February just after the April easing was announced by the prime minister, 147 groups – 601 people – reserved seats within 20 minutes.

“It’s been an incredible response,” said Sam Morgan, chief executive of the We Are Craft Group. “We have a small amount of availability on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons but otherwise our outdoor private dining pods are pretty much booked up until July and the inside is fully booked from when we open in mid-May until July. We knew there would be a significant demand, however, it has definitely exceeded our expectations. It’s really reassuring.”

One Eight Six in Manchester, a cocktail bar and lounge, is fully booked for 10 consecutive weekends “at least” from May, despite not advertising. “It’s been non-stop,” said owner Dean Mac. “The funny thing is that we’ve not really opened up yet. It’s all our local regulars, friends, and contacts [who have booked]. We’re leaving a couple of tables spare but we’re pretty much inundated. It’s pleasantly surprising how much people want to go back. People are desperate for normality. People are messaging saying they can’t wait to drink a new cocktail. They want to spend money.”

There's absolutely no way restaurants, bars/pubs, cafes, salons, barbers, cinemas etc would all struggle to get customers right now.

Graces7

JDxtra wrote: »

Lockdowns are like antibiotics. Use them too much, and they lose their effectiveness. The government just need to accept this now and stop beating us all with a stick.

We’re not in prison and we're not robots. We need to get out and about and live our lives. It’s been a bleak year and a terrible winter and people have just had enough.

And covid? Let it rip?

You are "living your life" just in a temporarily different way is all. No one is beating anyone with a stick.

The enemy is still here. And very much alive. Think about it? We need to stay the course. All of us.

suicide_circus

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]Not "sacrificing"; simply delaying.

So you don't believe sacrifices have been made?

Graces7

growleaves wrote: »

Perhaps if restrictionists stop blowing holes in the hull of the ship it will be easier to save it later on?

Nah; no holes. All is sound and watertight. So far

Monster249

Graces7 wrote: »

And covid? Let it rip?

You are "living your life" just in a temporarily different way is all. No one is beating anyone with a stick.

The enemy is still here. And very much alive. Think about it? We need to stay the course. All of us.

Stay the course...

Please leave.