Xenji wrote: » Is it that difficult to go to the RTE website and read the quotes from the days press briefing or actually watch it, you know a great way to keep informed and usually starts most days at half 5 :rolleyes:
Gael23 wrote: » With a doubling in deaths today the measures are clearly not working
helimachoptor wrote: » Won't make much of a difference. If they are living together both will get it anyway.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » So what measures do you think will work?
Idbatterim wrote: » what do you suggest doing from here? there is one issue I see though and it shouldnt be permitted in my opinion. I dont think people should be allowed into supermarkets as a pair. Just saw a monther and daughter, the daughter was youg ish, but easily old enough to stay in car or home, I guess 11 or 12 years old...
TheCitizen wrote: » Why can’t posters on here link efficiently to quotes they put on here? Is it that difficult?
Xenji wrote: » That Irish Times article should be ignored, even the CMO just said it.
housemouse wrote: » Fine, I'm arrogant. What does that make you - someone who responds to a reasoned and researched post by calling it "Utter Utter bollocks"?
TheCitizen wrote: » Such arrogance. Did you read today’s Irish Times? Can you not bring yourself to admit that the measures taken in Ireland are bearing fruit? So pathetic when someone can’t admit that they’ve got it wrong. Our politicians are far from perfect but they’ve listened to the right advice on this and with the bank holiday weekend coming they have earned the continuance of support and discipline that the Irish people have largely displayed. Characters like you carping from the sidelines have nothing positive to contribute. Thankfully out there the people are listening to the expert advice that is proving to be working.
An international model that projected that Ireland may have already passed its peak should not be relied upon and ‘simply isn’t true’
housemouse wrote: » I've already done far more work than you in this thread. I am now here just to remind you that you failed to understand what was said. There are some other people here who might actually add to the discussion. Let's give them a chance to speak now.
housemouse wrote: » This is what it looks like when someone disagrees with me but can't explain why.
terrydel wrote: » Haha, throwing out nicknames now when you are struggling. You didnt answer, you avoided it and obfuscated, no amount of telling yourself you did not will change that fact.
terrydel wrote: » So you'd have gone with what approach then? You are great at criticising and calling things panicked and poor, but you offer no alternative or are afraid to back your principles. The decisions they took were manifestly not poor or panicked, you are just 100% wrong, but Im sure you are used to that. If you think otherwise, please provide the evidence that shows they are poor., and what your alternative is and why that is better I look forward to it.
Idbatterim wrote: » Fg have got it right? you think we would be following a different strategy if it were FF in power?
TheCitizen wrote: » The first line says it all. Utter Utter bollocks. The panic and fear is driven by panic merchants like you on here. I m not a Fine Gael supporter but they’ve got this right and the rest of the body politic have generally supported them and followed the right advice. Even when we get reports like the positive projections in the Irish Times today, the penny still won’t drop with the likes of you. They’ve largely got it right, and they deserve the discipline and support of the population to maintain the current direction. Quit snowflaking and carping, it’s embarrassing.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I'll tell you what 'sparky' you write the answer you would be happy with, PM it to me. I'll have a read and will consider whether to post it as my own. How's that sound . I didn't refuse to answer btw I answered you twice, your refusal to accept an answer you disagree with is not my problem. You want an echo chamber? Start your very own thread and restrict access to those that agree with you.
Queasy Tadpole wrote: » I'm going up the wall. The restrictions are now really starting to get me. I've already been hit terribly financially, socially... it's getting to the stage now where I'm caring less and less about people I don't know dying and that is just horrible to think about. I've lost many loved ones and know the pain and never ending grief but I feel myself becoming quite cold towards others now.
housemouse wrote: » This binary thinking is what you see in someone with a fanatical belief sytem. If you want to analyse or measure the costs, he will call you a sociopath. People who can't think but are still very loud - they are why we can't have nice things.
housemouse wrote: » The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic. Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis. The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody. A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost. For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government. The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic. But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative. The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended. Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences. A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus. Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more). The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus. And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two. If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.
Cyrus wrote: » A bit of common sense analysis which it seems we are being purposely being deprived of to heighten the hysteria:https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/04/02/the-vital-contexts-of-coronavirus/n all the millions of words written about how many people have died in each country each day, no coverage appears to have given the baseline daily death rate before the outbreak began. Take Scotland: here, the death rate had averaged between 6 and 8 people per day before increasing to 16 on the 1st of April. But the typical death rate in Scotland is 160 people per day, with about a quarter of them dying of cancer. This means that the virus is currently increasing the daily rate by 10% (and before that around 5%) – a substantial increase, but not as massive as many members of the public are probably assuming, given the press coverage. Reporting the increasing number of deaths in isolation without this context is likely to increase people’s stress about the virus, because people are unaware of how many people normally die each day.
terrydel wrote: » The answering of the question does not in any way require you to be the person tasked with making the decision. How can you not grasp that? Your refusal to answer is simply because you know the answer will contradict the argument you are trying to make.
terrydel wrote: » The crisis is exactly that, unprecedented and essentially impossible to plan for, so all the cold economics that housemouse tried to graft onto it are superfluous, it was a fairly binary choice they had to make, and they made the correct one.
