Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

Jim_Hodge

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It’s in NPHET’s letter to government on April 22nd

https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/ba4aa0-letters-from-the-cmo-to-the-minister-for-health/

Bottom of page 3



So they actually put in a letter that they are worried the vaccine won’t work against a variant that doesn’t exist.

You've just done what some journalists have done: taken a portion of a sentence that suits the narrative. The same paragraph points out how easing of restrictions on visiting is possible.

Dr. Em

Dr. Em wrote: »

On the balance of risk, it is relatively safe to visit those vaccinated, but I don't get the scorn for those who are anxious about it.

I get it entirely. We finally have a way out of this dreary mess, reflected in falling hospitalisations/ICU admissions despite a relatively high plateau of daily cases. The vaccines are proving their weight in gold. To be fretful about visiting those who have received both jabs almost beggars belief. Why enter a supermarket if one is that paranoid, or even tiptoe outside the front door altogether. Vaccines have kept pace with the annual flu, and it will be no different with Covid. It's time to embrace the real world and accept that everything carries a modicum of risk, however tiny. Even NPHET have come to realise this. It's a miserable existence anticipating the worst case scenario, live and let live I say and to hell with the begrudgers.

Dr. Em

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I get it entirely. We finally have a way out of this dreary mess, reflected in falling hospitalisations/ICU admissions despite a relatively high plateau of daily cases. The vaccines are proving their weight in gold. To be fretful about visiting those who have received both jabs almost beggars belief. Why enter a supermarket if one is that paranoid, or even tiptoe outside the front door altogether. Vaccines have kept pace with the annual flu, and it will be no different with Covid. It's time to embrace the real world and accept that everything carries a modicum of risk, however tiny. Even NPHET have come to realise this. It's a miserable existence anticipating the worst case scenario, live and let live I say and to hell with the begrudgers.

Wtf? Would you say that to someone who is not opposing the reopening but is personally anxious all the same? That they are a begrudger? Really?

Eod100

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I get it entirely. We finally have a way out of this dreary mess, reflected in falling hospitalisations/ICU admissions despite a relatively high plateau of daily cases. The vaccines are proving their weight in gold. To be fretful about visiting those who have received both jabs almost beggars belief. Why enter a supermarket if one is that paranoid, or even tiptoe outside the front door altogether. Vaccines have kept pace with the annual flu, and it will be no different with Covid. It's time to embrace the real world and accept that everything carries a modicum of risk, however tiny. Even NPHET have come to realise this. It's a miserable existence anticipating the worst case scenario, live and let live I say and to hell with the begrudgers.

You say you get it but your comment demonstrates you clearly haven't got the point you're replying to. It's not about begrudgery or jealousy or scare mongering or curtain twitching or any other terms bandied about here frequently. Reality is after living with covid for so long naturally some people will be anxious about easing of restrictions even if safe. Some people will have no issue whatsoever but to not get that other people have a different perspective isn't getting it at all tbh.

FintanMcluskey

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

You've just done what some journalists have done: taken a portion of a sentence that suits the narrative. The same paragraph points out how easing of restrictions on visiting is possible.

No I’ve quoted what they wrote in a letter while making the point that the messaging from NPHET is incorrect and causes unnecessary worry like the initial poster not visiting vaccinated parents

Your telling me they didn’t mean what they said, which I don’t understand

Public health advice is incredibly sensitive as it can cause unnecessary worry when talking about variants that don’t exist which the vaccine may not work on

Jim_Hodge

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No I’ve quoted what they wrote in a letter while making the point that the messaging from NPHET is incorrect and causes unnecessary worry like the initial poster not visiting vaccinated parents

Your telling me they didn’t mean what they said, which I don’t understand

Public health advice is incredibly sensitive as it can cause unnecessary worry when talking about variants that don’t exist which the vaccine may not work on

That's not what I was telling you at all. And you know it.

You took a portion of a sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, so as to make your point - just what some media are doing.

Good luck, you've your mind set so I'll leave you to it.

hmmm

It's interesting watching some of the US commentators, particularly on the news shows yesterday. They are effectively winding down, people who want a vaccine can generally get one, and the push is on to convince others. They're expecting a sharp drop in hospitalisations over the next few weeks, and the pandemic to be effectively over for them (with a need to be careful over the next few months).

It's like a football game I think. We went 2-0 down very quickly, got back a goal around halftime with treatments (2-1) and then knocked in two quick goals as the vaccines came along in a rush (2-3). With the news that the vaccines are suppressing transmission and blocking variants we've added another to go two up (2-4), and have 5 minutes left in the match.

FintanMcluskey

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

That's not what I was telling you at all. And you know it.

You took a portion of a sentence while ignoring the rest of the paragraph, so as to make your point - just what some media are doing.

Good luck, you've your mind set so I'll leave you to it.

Did NPHET, in writing, mention concern about variants that the vaccine might not be as effective on?

How does the rest of the paragraph before that sentence in some way negate the implication of the it?

Dr. Em

hmmm wrote: »

It's interesting watching some of the US commentators, particularly on the news shows yesterday. They are effectively winding down, people who want a vaccine can generally get one, and the push is on to convince others. They're expecting a sharp drop in hospitalisations over the next few weeks, and the pandemic to be effectively over for them (with a need to be careful over the next few months).

It's like a football game I think. We went 2-0 down very quickly, got back a goal around halftime with treatments (2-1) and then knocked in two quick goals as the vaccines came along in a rush (2-3). With the news that the vaccines are suppressing transmission and blocking variants we've added another to go two up (2-4), and have 5 minutes left in the match.

I heard a bit of similar coverage. They could be making a mistake to attribute the slowdown so much to vaccine hesitancy. I knew some older people in the US who wanted a vaccine and were struggling to get one until just recently. In their area, they needed to book an appointment online and have a mobile to receive a confirmation. Obviously this creates problems for many people. They also had to be able to drive to the pharmacy. If you compare the vaccination rates for over 65s in the US and the UK, the US has missed a lot of people.

hmmm

Dr. Em wrote: »

I heard a bit of similar coverage. They could be making a mistake to attribute the slowdown so much to vaccine hesitancy. I knew some older people in the US who wanted a vaccine and were struggling to get one until just recently. In their area, they needed to book an appointment online and have a mobile to receive a confirmation. Obviously this creates problems for many people. They also had to be able to drive to the pharmacy. If you compare the vaccination rates for over 65s in the US and the UK, the US has missed a lot of people.

I'm assuming also they are a bit like Israel, where you had a large section of society who ignored public health advice and many of these groups have already been exposed to Covid. Combine that group with the vaccinated numbers and you are close to herd immunity. That's not the case here where most people have generally observed precautions, and so vaccines will need to do more of our heavy lifting.

timsey tiger

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

"There is a particular concern about introducing a new variant against which the vaccine may be less effective"


So they actually put in a letter that they are worried the vaccine won’t work against a variant that doesn’t exist.

Yes that is their job. It's called contingency planning.

Dr. Em

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's the level of ignorance we're dealing with. Affecting concern for others who are consumed by irrational fears of reopening society, and not one solitary damn given for the half million unemployed (courtesy of lockdown) desperate to return to work and normality. Sigh.

That is a lot of assumptions. It is perfectly possible to have lost one's job, suffer poor mental health, support the reopening, be desperately worried about local businesses, to personally know someone who has been very ill with Covid or even died, to know someone whose vital health screening has been cancelled, and to be very anxious about meeting other people socially. No one wanted to have to lockdown. We are all angry about the virus and mismanagement thereof. Heaping scorn on someone who is anxious is tantamount to bullying.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Did NPHET, in writing, mention concern about variants that the vaccine might not be as effective on?

How does the rest of the paragraph before that sentence in some way negate the implication of the it?

This is a consistent tactic. Choose a single statement from within a full document and use that statement in isolation and out of context to represent and try to denigrate the view of those they are arguing against, all the while ignoring everything else written and the context in which the statement was made.

Is the ultimate in bad faith debate, a tactic usually seen on Tucker Carlson and Hannity.

Lumen

hmmm wrote: »

I'm assuming also they are a bit like Israel, where you had a large section of society who ignored public health advice and many of these groups have already been exposed to Covid. Combine that group with the vaccinated numbers and you are close to herd immunity. That's not the case here where most people have generally observed precautions, and so vaccines will need to do more of our heavy lifting.

The difference in cumulative cases between Israel and Ireland only amounts to about 5% of the population, which is a little over once week's worth of first doses at current vaccination rates.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is a consistent tactic. Choose a single statement from within a full document and use that statement in isolation and out of context to represent and try to denigrate the view of those they are arguing against, all the while ignoring everything else written and the context in which the statement was made.

Is the ultimate in bad faith debate, a tactic usually seen on Tucker Carlson and Hannity.

Exactly this.

Asking questions nobody knows the answer to when trying to pick holes in one line of a statement out of context is the ultimate in bad faith.

Derek Zoolander

hmmm wrote: »

I'm assuming also they are a bit like Israel, where you had a large section of society who ignored public health advice and many of these groups have already been exposed to Covid. Combine that group with the vaccinated numbers and you are close to herd immunity. That's not the case here where most people have generally observed precautions, and so vaccines will need to do more of our heavy lifting.

What the data has shown is that cases drop significantly once vaccination rate hits 50% of total population - this is true for U.K. and Israel and of US which hasn’t hit this threshold yet

Eod100

Zebra3 wrote: »

People who cried out for lockdown who didn't give a toss about who they put out of work (as long they kept their own job) or the loss of civil liberties are now looking for empathy?

:rolleyes:

It's quite possible to have empathy for more than one person or group at a time and to have empathy for people who you don't agree with (making the assumption that everyone who may be anxious was always in favour of restrictions which is a big one). My point was regardless of views of restrictions people have been living with them so long that some may have almost become conditioned by them. Some will be ready to go back to more normality. Others might take a bit longer. Think it's fairly juvenile and lacking in emotional intelligence to dismiss those that can't snap back as begrudgers imo.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

It's quite possible to have empathy for more than one person or group at a time and to have empathy for people who you don't agree with (making the assumption that everyone who may be anxious was always in favour of restrictions which is a big one). My point was regardless of views of restrictions people have been living with them so long that some may have almost become conditioned by them. Some will be ready to go back to more normality. Others might take a bit longer. Think it's fairly juvenile and lacking in emotional intelligence to dismiss those that can't snap back as begrudgers imo.

The begrudgers remark was a generalised rallying cry to embrace life to the fullest without apprehension of what others think. You ingeniously decided it was directed at that poster, for the sake of taking the high moral ground and pontificate about perceived wrongs. You take myopia and bad faith posting to a whole new level, not exactly a model of integrity or credibility for that matter.

Eod100

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The begrudgers remark was a generalised rallying cry to embrace life to the fullest without apprehension of what others think. You ingeniously decided it was directed at that poster, for the sake of taking the high moral ground and pontificate about perceived wrongs. You take myopia and bad faith posting to a whole new level, not exactly a model of integrity or credibility for that matter.

I read it in the context of your full post and your reply to OP about busybodies gawping over hedges. Not taking any moral high ground. Just willing and able to accept that everyone is different. If I have misinterpreted your post then mea cuala but can't say it was very clear and if adding all the above context after the fact may demonstrate that. Anyways will leave it there. Enjoy the rest of your bank holiday Bertie.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a consistent tactic. Choose a single statement from within a full document and use that statement in isolation and out of context to represent and try to denigrate the view of those they are arguing against, all the while ignoring everything else written and the context in which the statement was made.

Is the ultimate in bad faith debate, a tactic usually seen on Tucker Carlson and Hannity.

That’s serious waffle

I was highlighting something NPHET put on paper (it’s in black and white) while discussing a poster who was not visiting their vaccinated parents.

There is no misinterpretation, it’s in the letter to government

I struggle with the logic behind your argument that NPHET aren’t actually saying what they actually said, or in this case print

Although, you also follow the logic that last weekend inter county travel wasn’t safe until July but since Tuesday it’s safe from next week

Carlowgirl

I will visit my parebys of course and I do visit them I just haven't in a couple of weeks whike they were getting vaccinated. . I'm honestly a bit confused about whether I have to socially distance from them. On one hand we are told its safe if we are vaccinated and on the other we are told it isn't with new variants. I am in contact with a lot of people so obviously I have to be careful. It is confusing. I'm not afraid of going into a shop for god sake I'm in contact with so many people every day. I personally decided I was going to abide by the restrictions in an effort not to me adding to the virus problem. Like I didbt feel having parties was appropriate in this. As I said in an earlier post it's not like we were asked to go fight in a war we were asked to stsy apart. Some people are just very selfish and only think of themselves. They want the party they want to go where they like. All we have now are people driving to other communities making a mess and feckinh off. Buying take out food and dumping it for residents to clean up. I think there are a lot of good things we could take from lockdown. Especially for the environment. I've gone off track now but it's just something I think. We are all going hear there and everywhere looking to put up photos on Facebook of cool places. Most people doing that are leaving big messes behind them for others to clean. Again I know I've gone off topic but it's all part of lockdown and the restrictions.
Anyway I've put with parties all through lock down. I'm not a curtain twitcher but I know wjen they are on obviously as I can héar them abd I just think personally they are selfish. They are adding to the problem and not giving a chance for the figured to go down. I haven't been a recluse. I meet friends outside for a walk and food outside after. I'm just choosing to abide by the restrictions and not add to the problem.

Ficheall

Some posters deriding others' concern now have been deriding the same concerns for the past year or so - Expecting a reduction of derision now that summer and the vaccines are bringing us into the end zone and the risk is actually significantly reduced seems wildly optimistic...

Dr. Em

Dr. Em wrote: »

That is a lot of assumptions. It is perfectly possible to have lost one's job, suffer poor mental health, support the reopening, be desperately worried about local businesses, to personally know someone who has been very ill with Covid or even died, to know someone whose vital health screening has been cancelled, and to be very anxious about meeting other people socially. No one wanted to have to lockdown. We are all angry about the virus and mismanagement thereof. Heaping scorn on someone who is anxious is tantamount to bullying.

That poster referred to people breaking the restrictions as being selfish. She wrote about how all we need to do is stay home and that it's hardly war.

I have understanding for anyone who is tormented with anxiety during this time. It's an awful feeling anyway. The fear around catching Covid or passing it on is understandably strong.

However when the person experiencing such struggles fails to have an understanding of the reality of others, when they think all they have to do is stay home? I find it hard to have compassion for them in that case.

Mitch Connor

Wife was in citywest today, said there was loads of staff, but that there were few appointments. Staff said they were busy yesterday and due to be busy tomorrow, but today they had very few bookings.

We arrived there at 10.30 and there was very few cars parked.

Shame that slots are going unused simply cause people aren't booked in.

Carlowgirl

Carlowgirl wrote: »

I think there are a lot of good things we could take from lockdown. Especially for the environment.

I disagree with you on the strongest terms. Adopting a schoolmarmish stance isn't very endearing. If one wasn't environmentally conscious before the lockdown, fat chance their ideology would change overnight. Incidental fall in CO2 emissions from reduced transport, only a temporary improvement until NGOs start behaving responsibly. Bigger picture, the negatives for most of us vastly outweigh the positives over past year. Mass job losses, deterioration in quality of life and proliferation of mental health issues. The youth starting out in their careers hardest hit of all, unjustly punished for the needs of under 1% of the population. The blunt lockdown tool has inflicted enough damage already, most of us are no longer willing to be compliant sacrificial lambs.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

That’s serious waffle

I was highlighting something NPHET put on paper (it’s in black and white) while discussing a poster who was not visiting their vaccinated parents.

There is no misinterpretation, it’s in the letter to government

I struggle with the logic behind your argument that NPHET aren’t actually saying what they actually said, or in this case print

Although, you also follow the logic that last weekend inter county travel wasn’t safe until July but since Tuesday it’s safe from next week

That entire section of the letter essentially says “relax restrictions on care homes, but don’t too mad just yet”. To represent it otherwise is disingenuous.

And on the second part- your point here assumes that they stated there would be no inter county travel until July.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

That entire section of the letter essentially says “relax restrictions on care homes, but don’t too mad just yet”. To represent it otherwise is disingenuous.

Your accusing me of being disingenuous for quoting directly from the letter while you imply what you’ve assumed is a direct quote

Brilliant stuff

Zebra3

Eod100 wrote: »

It's quite possible to have empathy for more than one person or group at a time and to have empathy for people who you don't agree with (making the assumption that everyone who may be anxious was always in favour of restrictions which is a big one). My point was regardless of views of restrictions people have been living with them so long that some may have almost become conditioned by them. Some will be ready to go back to more normality. Others might take a bit longer. Think it's fairly juvenile and lacking in emotional intelligence to dismiss those that can't snap back as begrudgers imo.

There was large scale lack of empathy for those that lost their jobs.

Patronising nonsense galore that "we are all in this together" from the WFH brigade many of whom have built up savings and no longer have to commute to work and who baulked at paying a higher rate of tax towards the cost of lockdown despite their hypocritical call "we're all in this together".

My empathy remains with those mainly young people who have lost their jobs and missed out on their education as a result of political decisions to protect mainly elderly people, and it'll be a while before my empathy go elsewhere.

And your last sentence would be better aimed at all those who so easily dismissed those who lost their livelihoods over the last year and a bit.

Carlowgirl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That poster referred to people breaking the restrictions as being selfish. She wrote about how all we need to do is stay home and that it's hardly war.

I have understanding for anyone who is tormented with anxiety during this time. It's an awful feeling anyway. The fear around catching Covid or passing it on is understandably strong.

However when the person experiencing such struggles fails to have an understanding of the reality of others, when they think all they have to do is stay home? I find it hard to have compassion for them in that case.

I meabt it's selfish having parties. The longer people are at that the longer this goes on. It is selfish

We can meet people outside. Its not like we habe to be completely isolated. There is no need for dribking parties every night. I know people that have lost their jobs but they have taken this time to learn new things and keep fit. They are not having drinking parties every night witg ten people from different houses. Why not have one or two if you have to break the restrictions. Most of these people are on the pup. They coukd use thid time for something else or meet one or two people.
I thought the lock dosn was a great opportunity to learn new hobbies. It was also a chance to slow down and relax. Not feeling under pressure to be here there and every where. It also helped me to realise who are friends and who are acquaintance. The lock down is hard on everyone but having parties isn't the answer to coming out of lock dosn. I m not talking about kids her I'm talking about people I their 30 a to 50s and bringing their kids along. Each one of them in different schools. This is happening all weekend and the figures next week are going to frightening I think. We are a very soft generation if we think cutting down or contacts and onky meeting one or two people is hard. If there was a world war we'd have to stsy home. Like people did back in the 30 s etc. Anyway I'm choosing to abide by the restrictions and that's my right.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Your accusing me of being disingenuous for quoting directly from the letter while you imply what you’ve assumed is a direct quote

Brilliant stuff

You quoted one sentence at the end of a section. I paraphrased the entire section. The part you quoted, independent of the remainder, said as you said it does. But it ignores completely the context in which it was stated.

What Username Guidelines

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Wife was in citywest today, said there was loads of staff, but that there were few appointments. Staff said they were busy yesterday and due to be busy tomorrow, but today they had very few bookings.

We arrived there at 10.30 and there was very few cars parked.

Shame that slots are going unused simply cause people aren't booked in.

Brought my mam a few weeks back and it was jammed, queue stretched out into the car park.

My dad got an appointment a few days after that he was unable to attend, and we spent ages trying to get thru to the phone line to cancel. When we got through, the guy said that they’re so busy with reorganising appointments, that the new process is basically that all no-shows are automatically rebooked with a new date and time and it’s causing issues with “gaps”. Some days everyone shows up and for some reason other days can be quiet. Very frustrating for staff there apparently. When I brought my dad to his rebooked appointment the place was very very quiet.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

You quoted one sentence at the end of a section. I paraphrased the entire section. The part you quoted, independent of the remainder, said as you said it does. But it ignores completely the context in which it was stated.

I quoted a sentence word for word.

I was using it to support a point about delivering public health advice in an appropriate manner, which NPHET or government don’t do.

A poster had referred to variants that the vaccine might not be as effective on, I was highlighting where such inaccurate information can be found in letters from our very own public health team.

Charles Babbage

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Brought my mam a few weeks back and it was jammed, queue stretched out into the car park.

My dad got an appointment a few days after that he was unable to attend, and we spent ages trying to get thru to the phone line to cancel. When we got through, the guy said that they’re so busy with reorganising appointments, that the new process is basically that all no-shows are automatically rebooked with a new date and time and it’s causing issues with “gaps”. Some days everyone shows up and for some reason other days can be quiet. Very frustrating for staff there apparently. When I brought my dad to his rebooked appointment the place was very very quiet.

As they move into the 60-65 year olds you have people with jobs. Why doesn't the website simply let you choose a time, then everyone could go at a time that would suit them? It is hardly rocket science and they have known for the last year that they would need a vaccination booking system.

Oranage2

It feels like there's gonna be another set back soon, i just can't get my hopes up

Carlowgirl

Carlowgirl wrote: »

I meabt it's selfish having parties. The longer people are at that the longer this goes on. It is selfish

We can meet people outside. Its not like we habe to be completely isolated. There is no need for dribking parties every night. I know people that have lost their jobs but they have taken this time to learn new things and keep fit. They are not having drinking parties every night witg ten people from different houses. Why not have one or two if you have to break the restrictions. Most of these people are on the pup. They coukd use thid time for something else or meet one or two people.
I thought the lock dosn was a great opportunity to learn new hobbies. It was also a chance to slow down and relax. Not feeling under pressure to be here there and every where. It also helped me to realise who are friends and who are acquaintance. The lock down is hard on everyone but having parties isn't the answer to coming out of lock dosn. I m not talking about kids her I'm talking about people I their 30 a to 50s and bringing their kids along. Each one of them in different schools. This is happening all weekend and the figures next week are going to frightening I think. We are a very soft generation if we think cutting down or contacts and onky meeting one or two people is hard. If there was a world war we'd have to stsy home. Like people did back in the 30 s etc. Anyway I'm choosing to abide by the restrictions and that's my right.

At this stage of the pandemic I judge no person for breaking the restrictions. It doesn't matter to me whether they are teenager or adults. Learning a hobby is certainly a good thing and you are lucky to have been able to do so. Not everyone else has. Either we are still working or our motivation is through the floor. You have been able to do so. Not the case for others.

For you cutting down contacts or meeting one or two people is manageable. Not the case for others. You can compare the situations to not being as bad as a war. Not the case for others.

The restrictions run deeper than "just stay at home". They have torn at the fabric of what it means to be human. People being scared to sit beside each other, no longer feeling comfortable in certain environments, everyday connections gone, choice to live our lives the way we see fit gone. That's before we even consider the living hell of people in dangerous and or unhealthy home situations. Children who relied upon school to give them an escape from chaos.

It's wonderful that we have among us very steely and resilient minds. That doesn't mean others are "soft". I can understandable why you would be anxious and why you abide by the restrictions. Can you understand how it has been so hard for others in different ways?

giveitholly

Oranage2 wrote: »

It feels like there's gonna be another set back soon, i just can't get my hopes up

That's the spirit,I reckon some people won't be happy unless we go into another lockdown in Autumn and come out and say I told you so

thebronze14

Carlowgirl wrote: »

I meabt it's selfish having parties. The longer people are at that the longer this goes on. It is selfish

We can meet people outside. Its not like we habe to be completely isolated. There is no need for dribking parties every night. I know people that have lost their jobs but they have taken this time to learn new things and keep fit. They are not having drinking parties every night witg ten people from different houses. Why not have one or two if you have to break the restrictions. Most of these people are on the pup. They coukd use thid time for something else or meet one or two people.
I thought the lock dosn was a great opportunity to learn new hobbies. It was also a chance to slow down and relax. Not feeling under pressure to be here there and every where. It also helped me to realise who are friends and who are acquaintance. The lock down is hard on everyone but having parties isn't the answer to coming out of lock dosn. I m not talking about kids her I'm talking about people I their 30 a to 50s and bringing their kids along. Each one of them in different schools. This is happening all weekend and the figures next week are going to frightening I think. We are a very soft generation if we think cutting down or contacts and onky meeting one or two people is hard. If there was a world war we'd have to stsy home. Like people did back in the 30 s etc. Anyway I'm choosing to abide by the restrictions and that's my right.

Why are you constantly bringing up World War?! That's fine, be ultra cautious if you want. No need the constant complaining about people getting on with life. If that bothered pull them up on it instead of going on about it on here

Carlowgirl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At this stage of the pandemic I judge no person for breaking the restrictions. It doesn't matter to me whether they are teenager or adults. Learning a hobby is certainly a good thing and you are lucky to have been able to do so. Not everyone else has. Either we are still working or our motivation is through the floor. You have been able to do so. Not the case for others.

For you cutting down contacts or meeting one or two people is manageable. Not the case for others. You can compare the situations to not being as bad as a war. Not the case for others.

The restrictions run deeper than "just stay at home". They have torn at the fabric of what it means to be human. People being scared to sit beside each other, no longer feeling comfortable in certain environments, everyday connections gone, choice to live our lives the way we see fit gone. That's before we even consider the living hell of people in dangerous and or unhealthy home situations. Children who relied upon school to give them an escape from chaos.

It's wonderful that we have among us very steely and resilient minds. That doesn't mean others are "soft". I can understandable why you would be anxious and why you abide by the restrictions. Can you understand how it has been so hard for others in different ways?

They are taking the p***. Why not meet up with one or two people. Having parties of yen is taking the p***. People have made huge sacrifice a for others to lift their leg all over it.
I have worked through covid and yes I've suffered severe anxiety at times especially at x mas. I coukd nt just throw a party of ten or more from different households to deal with that. That woukd have been selfish

Carlowgirl

Carlowgirl wrote: »

They are taking the p***. Why not meet up with one or two people. Having parties of yen is taking the p***. People have made huge sacrifice a for others to lift their leg all over it.
I have worked through covid and yes I've suffered severe anxiety at times especially at x mas. I coukd nt just throw a party of ten or more from different households to deal with that. That woukd have been selfish

I understand why you feel that way. Do you understand the other points in my post?

BlondeBomb

Do we get swab numbers on a BH?

timsey tiger

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I quoted a sentence word for word.

I was using it to support a point about delivering public health advice in an appropriate manner, which NPHET or government don’t do.

A poster had referred to variants that the vaccine might not be as effective on, I was highlighting where such inaccurate information can be found in letters from our very own public health team.

Only problem is that it didn't. Look up the word "may".

GeorgeBailey

Carlowgirl wrote: »

We are a very soft generation if we think cutting down or contacts and onky meeting one or two people is hard. If there was a world war we'd have to stsy home. Like people did back in the 30 s etc. Anyway I'm choosing to abide by the restrictions and that's my right.

Every current generation gets labelled as being weaker than the one that preceded it (while at the same time the previous generation will get blamed for the current state of the world. Go figure).

I can't believe there are still people making comparisons to war times like that's a reason for people to be grateful. The past year and a bit has been very difficult for many people in many ways. I know I myself have been in dark places at certain times through it all and have no doubt others have too. This does not equal being "soft".

Cut out the nonsense like this and you're likely to find your other arguments will get a little more support.

Carlowgirl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I understand why you feel that way. Do you understand the other points in my post?

Yes but if people are lonely they can meet up with one or two.

Carlowgirl

Carlowgirl wrote: »

Yes but if people are lonely they can meet up with one or two.

I'm glad you can see that people can be lonely.

I really hope that those who couldn't meet others during the restrictions managed ok.

Stheno

Carlowgirl wrote: »

Yes but if people are lonely they can meet up with one or two.

So its ok to not follow restrictions then? Like you've been doing meeting with your friends outside?

Carlowgirl

Carlowgirl wrote: »

Yes but if people are lonely they can meet up with one or two.

They're not seeking your permission. Those beach scenes last week, you'd be surprised if you started tallying them up. Doesn't burden me at all if two or a dozen assemble outdoors, in any event I can't control the actions of other people nor have any desire to do so. You underestimate human nature, we're not linear automatons without spontaneity.

Vicxas

No deaths, 453 cases

harr

453 and no deaths

Storm 10

UK doing well 1649 cases one death

Vicxas

Yep, vaccines dont work.....