Cupatae wrote: » Its what you insinuated and its the category you were trying box me and other posters into but failed miserably.
Ace2007 wrote: » Do you have a source and back up for your claims? Why do you keep using the word Nazis? Do you think it's appropriate?
lord quackinton wrote: » Just think about this: There are Part time workers getting 350 per week into the paw posting here tonight safely in their pyjamas in support of the lockdown There are full time workers right now this minute in shops exposing themselves to the virus not even getting 350 Can someone please explain this to me, preferably one of the lockdown Nazis on here
BanditLuke wrote: » Minimum wage is what 10 euro an hour or more so if they working full time thats 390 a week, how's that less than 350?. If you are going to talk pony at the very least get your numbers right.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » When did I insinuate it? It's the position you hold. Just own it.
Cupatae wrote: » If its by the logic you set out, you hold the exact same position lmao
The health officials have not yet backed any date to lift restrictions. As such the restrictions are here for an indefinite period of time. When this was pointed out to you you back tracked and said May 5th, a date that the experts haven't given to lift restrictions, but a date to which restrictions will continue to before they decide what to do. So they may extend they may not. The government have said that restrictions will continue to at least May 5th. Here, there is no definite timeline for them to end. This is the position you initially supported. They have not said that restrictions will continue till at least May 5th, but no longer then May 13th, at which stage we will begin to ease them. Here, there is a definite timeline for them to begin to ease them. This is the position I support. If you can't see the difference between both positions then there is no helping you.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » It isn't, as I've pointed out here:
You took my comment far more personally than it was intended; it wasn't directed specifically at you but at a swathe of posters on the thread who have no background in medicine, epidemiology or indeed economics but still seem to think they know far better than those who do. Sorry if it seemed like because I was responding to your post I was directing the comment at you. Yes, I do put my faith in experts. And while there is some debate between different experts on different elements, there's broad consensus that Ireland is following the right path. And that's seen in the data coming through as well that's showing we're getting a handle on this.
Ace2007 wrote: » Like i said earlier on anyone can qualify to be an accountant these days... He must have left his calculator in the office
Cupatae wrote: » I pointed out i dont hold the position of indefinite lock down either, is there a purpose to this or do you just wanna go round in circles?
lord quackinton wrote: » Why is ok to expect food shops, refuse collectors and nursing home employees to work through this lockdown All low paid employees being thrown to the wolves by people who support the lockdown while they work safely at home or sit at home on their asses collecting 350 a week I have respect for these employees and I will do my bit in ending this bull**** Lockdown The lockdown is split between the haves and have nots Those who are well off and those who can work from home and students with little worries, while having fun making funny videos And those who have lost their businesses and those who face long term unemployment and the depression and humiliation that follows. Those who will not be able to pay their mortgages and bills. Many will lay in bed tonight thinking suicide is the only escape But those who are for the lockdown don’t care these people Why would they, they only care about themselves
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You say you don't but you do. You can't give any indication of when you would lift restrictions. You say May 5th, but only if the experts agree with you. So if they don't you extend again. As such your May 5th date is not a definite one. And if the experts want to extend again after that, then I'm guessing you do. And it goes on. When do you say, hold on, extending will cause bigger problems then it will solve and give a date, or at least a rough period of time, for us to begin lifting restrictions?
lord quackinton wrote: » You especially of all the posters who support the lockdown will not answer seriously the issue around low paid employees in retail bin collection and health care being treated unfairly When you lead with what’s the minimum wage now , €10 I know you hold little value in what these workers are doing This lockdown suits you personally and the longer it lasts it suits u even better That’s the harsh reality you won’t admit I feel sorry for you
lord quackinton wrote: » All pro lockdown people answer this post I know aldi and Lidl and Tesco are mad looking for workers Can you do your bit for the lockdown?
darced wrote: » He has a point, my sister works in a Nursing home and gets 350ish a week. Its not really fair that she is risking infecting our elderly parents for a pittance while others are sitting at home on the same money, crazy.
GazzaL wrote: » What's everyone planning for the May bank holiday weekend now? If there weather's good, I reckon a trip to the beach is on the cards.
Ace2007 wrote: » Please show me the post when i ask about the min wage today? I've said that i want the restrictions lifted slowly and society to work for all together - yet you seem to think that means i want a lock down - you sir cannot read - go search my posts today/yesterday I've said it more than once. You want to lift all restrictions come Monday and just lets all get back at it - and to hell with the consequences - that's how your posts come about - and you don't even try to hide it I asked you why you keep using the term Nazi to describe posters and you refuse to answer?
Ace2007 wrote: » @Darced, would you support the approach of just lifting up all restrictions come Monday and we all get back to work?
Strumms wrote: » It’s fair, of course it is. Your sister is involved in a key function that without her working, people could or would die. What do you think happens in a nursing home if no doctors, carers, physios, catering, cleaners turn up ? If she is working for a pittance, that’s not covid related, she agreed on a wage when she accepted the job surly ? People who are sitting at home WANT to work but are prohibited from working. They STILL have bills and financial commitments that need fulfilling and the payment is helping. They’d fûcking bite your hand off if someone on the news came on and said “ok, all fixed, back to the grindstone.”
Cupatae wrote: » So you say, but ive proven you wrong multiple times now go back and read the posts, your desperate attempts to save face are boring me now. You are just tryna twist and muddy the waters.
Cupatae wrote: » When the health officials back it and we have a clear well defined plan on how to lift em with long term goals in mind.
Cupatae wrote: » You do realise that me and you get no say on the date its lifted? do you want a date for arguement sake? May 5th with clear well defined plans and the backing of health officials Happy?
lord quackinton wrote: » You still have not answered seriously the issue of low paid expected to work at the coal face What if they did what you have and go into lockdown Where we would all be then? All you did was make a joke of the issue
This Anthony “Don’t Shake My Hand” Fauci is already walking back the predictions of reported deaths. He and his team went from 1 to 2.2 million, to 100 to 250 thousand even assuming full compliance with panic measures, to now admitting reported deaths will be “likely closer to 60,000“. Words, you notice, which allow him to claim success if it’s 30,000. [...] As I said on Tuesday, anything under 100 thousand is a blown forecast. They cannot claim “social distancing worked even better than we thought!” No. The low ball 100 thou was with “social distancing”. If under 100K, it’s a blown model. We have to look for other reasons for the corpse shortfall. Like maybe the same causes of what made the other pandemics and flu to go away are more important that the experts thought. Or we have to redefine what “social distancing” means.
Neil Ferguson and his Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team colleagues scared the world silly in mid-March. They announced they ran a sophisticated epidemiological model which said Doom was on the way. They said that if we did nothing to stop the coronavirus, that “In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB [Great Britain] and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.” If there were negative effects, and if we did nothing, the totals would soar even higher. To avoid this apocalypse the authors recommended two possible strategies. They were: “(a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread–reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely.” Relying on their model, they insisted that “optimal mitigation policies…might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems…being overwhelmed many times over”. By mitigation they meant such things as “combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease.”
The Spanish flu of 1918 was a horrific event. It befell a world fresh from a global war, one with poor medical care, aspirin poisoning, shortages of every kind. Between 17 and 58 million were killed worldwide. The CDC estimated that about 675,000 Americans died, when the population in the US was about 106 million. This makes 637 per 100,000 dead of Spanish flu in the US. Imperial college predicted 670 per 100,000 would die of coronavirus. When the COVID-19 Response team constructed their model on 16 March there were only “6,470 deaths confirmed worldwide” and 97 in the US. Yet, somehow, in the presence of modern medicine and these low figures, coronavirus was predicted to be deadlier than the Spanish flu.
