Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Acceptable Covid death rates

1356720

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ Shao Kahn


    It's part of the same wider discussion.

    I agree that someone should have the courtesy to cover their mouth / nose when coughing and sneezing.

    But it's not always practical for someone to take several weeks off every winter when they invariably get the sniffles. Some people can do it, but not everyone.

    Not to mention all the hidden illnesses that we are all in contact with every single day. You can only mitigate risk up to a point, after which it starts to become a bit nonsensical in the wider context of a functioning society.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,121 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


    Acknowledging that someone should cover their mouth while coughing is as much of a "civil liberty issue" as acknowleding that people should wear masks on public transport during a pandemic. I don't see how people accept the former but cannot accept the latter.


    I never mentioned anything to the effect that the fella I knew should be forced to take weeks off.



  • Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭ Murph85


    Government contributing to pressure on health service by cigarettes being legal. Ban them... complicit in thousands of deaths a year and pressure on the health service...

    Why is that so overlooked, when they are prepared to lock down the country for close to no deaths a week ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,175 ✭✭✭ Fandymo


    People die. It's part of life. Whether it's flu, pneumonia, covid, cancer. We can't shut down the country because someone isn't well and a stiff breeze might kill them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ Shao Kahn


    Maybe it's because a mask stays on your face permanently all day, and is not a natural part of your anatomy. So can be quite irritating when required indefinitely. Although most people were, of course, willing to put up with this irritation in the short term to save lives.

    Putting your hand up to catch a sneeze or cough, is generally considered a minor courtesy that doesn't inconvenience people too much.

    Masks and social distancing, by their nature, are only really suitable as short term mitigation measures.

    You did intimate that staff in your workplace were unhappy that management didn't ask this individual to stay home when sick. Which is why I addressed this aspect of your point specifically.

    Look, if you're happy to social distance and wear a mask indefinitely - possibly for years - then work away. Nobody should criticize you for that decision. But I don't think it would be fair to ask society at large to do this. It's not realistic in the long term.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    ...the needs of the economy sometimes out way human needs, we really should have a long think about this one post covid, but we probably wont!



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,500 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack



    The Government at the time literally introduced a ban on smoking indoors in public places overnight. It’s not the same as introducing measures such as lockdowns in an attempt to prevent the spread of a highly infectious disease.



  • Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭ DarkJager21




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭ brainboru1104


    While I do sympathize with you, I agree with the author. It's been nearly two years, we have to move forward at some point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,500 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack



    He’s making the point that he was right. It’s an absolutely useless point, but sure he was right and that’s all that matters 🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,068 ✭✭✭✭ ELM327


    Yup, the time to move on back to normal has passed.

    Everyone who wants a vaccine has had one. Time to open up. We're at an acceptable threshold and have been for weeks if not longer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    theres no need for these deaths, and for wrecking the economy, it is possible to protect both, we just dont want to, we re just being dumb humans, programs such as 'personal responsibility' have serious limitations at times, probably most of the time



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,500 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack



    Surely you’re not that far up your own fundament that you imagine anyone who doesn’t share your opinions doesn’t care about protecting people or the economy? They’re not dumb either. They just don’t share your opinions, or how you imagine everyone else should think about their lives and what matters to them, according to your opinions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    again, i largely disagree, we are all in fact vulnerable in regards this virus, some more so than others of course, but we actually can try protect everyone, theres no need for this approach, we re just choosing it. we re defaulting to think this is how the world works, or should work, it doesnt actually have to be, for example, removing pandemic protective measures for both employees and employers is a choice, theres actually no need to do this, its actually dumb!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭ brainboru1104


    I think that one traffic related death is one too many, therefore I propose we place limiters in every road vehicle to have a max speed of 10mph. That way, no one will die in a traffic accident again.

    I think that people choking on food and dying is an unacceptable risk. Therefore we should ban all solid food and only sell liquid meal replacements. That way, no one will choke on food again.

    Etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    take a step back and think about it, we re removing protective measures, measures of which we all need, now is this sensible?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    so we should remove protective measures, thats been proven to protect more, than expose more?



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,560 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    fair enough..... lets fcuk up the health system some more, and potentially cause a sh1t load of businesses to close permanently, should be interesting going forward....



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭ Cordell


    First of all, you have my sympathy for your situation.

    But with covid, flu, any health condition and in general any human activity, there is a level of risk that is considered acceptable, and this level of risk leads to a death rate that is considered acceptable. Yes, it's cold, but that's the way it is. We don't have hospitals that are minutes away from everyone so there will be deaths from heart attacks and strokes that will only happen because they can't reach the hospital in time. We are accepting a small death rate from road accidents, we are trying to reduce it but we know there is no way to make it zero, so we accept some deaths for our comfort of driving. And so on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,500 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack



    Having been forced to up-end our lives for the last two years has given people plenty of time to think about it. We’re scaling back on measures which were introduced to prevent the spread of an infectious disease which posed a significant threat to public health. The measures were introduced at great expense to our economy, so I don’t agree with the suggestion that we put our economy before people’s needs. In order to continue to meet people’s needs, the economy has to be opened up again and people have to be able to start living again, or you’re looking at the long term effects the measures will have on people’s mental health.

    It’s a balancing act which isn’t at all suggesting that the economy takes priority over people’s needs, when it’s patently obvious that what people need is to be able to live, rather than spend the rest of their lives in isolation dependent upon their income being a subsidised payment from the State.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,510 CMod ✭✭✭✭ ancapailldorcha


    People die from various things. A benign government could introduce various draconian measures to prevent deaths from things like car accidents, smoking, etc but only with great expense and loss of freedom. We're going to have to learn to live with covid but we already tolerate deaths from lung cancer, strokes, drink-driving, etc. Why should covid be any different?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,243 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    potentially cause a sh1t load of businesses to close permanently

    How is full reopening of the economy going to do this?



Advertisement