Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part III - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

1106107109111112325

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭WhiteMemento9


    robbiezero wrote: »
    Fairly easy to say when you are able to work from home. Not the case for everyone.

    I am conscious of that but we are providing as a society a significant monetary safety net for those people. We all want a return to some sort of normality. I am not in anyway arguging against that idea but using language evoking imagery of slavery and oppression I feel isn't helpful and is massively hyperbolic and actually tends to undermine the sentiment because it sounds so ridiculous. I do accept though that these things are relative and some people are suffering very badly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭bill murray


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    And your response, and I quote, was ‘and your solution is to carry on as normal....’ when I never even remotely suggested that.
    So that was an assumption on your part and an unfounded one at that.

    The timeline is too slow.
    We have one million people out of work and billions of euros of debt building by the day.
    Meanwhile our hospitals are empty with no covid patients, waiting for a surge that ISN’T COMING because everyone has been locked in their houses for the last 9 weeks.
    August 10th is just over 12 weeks away. We are already 9 weeks in.
    That means the country will have been effectively shut down for over 6 months while the daily number of cases is minuscule & completely manageable for the health service. This is absolutely absurd.

    Cocoon the elderly and those with underlying health conditions and allow everyone else to go back to work. The level of damage being done is going to have decades worth of consequences and the fact that some people think this is acceptable while covid-19 wards across the country lay empty is absolutely mind boggling.
    Lockdown is not a cure for the virus, it only delays and suppresses the inevitable.

    The vast majority of the workforce in this country have some form of underline condition, asthma, people with high blood pressure, kidney problems, cystic fibrous, recovered from cancer , diabetes, chrones disease lthe list goes on

    If you took everyone out of the workforce that had the slightest underline condition there would be no work fource


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Few people are in fear, mostly just common decency and regard for the life of elderly people. 'Some people', yeah, just a few hundred thousand in Europe in 8 weeks, very considerate.

    Life expectancy at age 80 for a westerner is much higher than most people think. For an American woman it is 9 years, for men it is 7 more years.
    Irish victims in their late seventies and early 80's would have a lot of years left to live if not for covid.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7565998

    It is different to the average age of death in Ireland which is 80 , a figure which is dragged down massively by people who die young of suicide, car crashes, child mortality, sudden adult deaths, accidents,murder, very unhealthy lifestyles, middle aged people getting cancer, whatever.

    If you make it to your 70s or early 80s, you are more than likely going to make it to around 90 years old before you die, barring an exception such as this pandemic.

    This is utter nonsense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    The vast majority of the workforce in this country have some form of underline condition, asthma, people with high blood pressure, kidney problems, cystic fibrous, recovered from cancer , diabetes, chrones disease lthe list goes on

    If you took everyone out of the workforce that had the slightest underline condition there would be no work fource

    This is also nonsense


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭MrDavid1976


    I am conscious of that but we are providing as a society a significant monetary safety net for those people. We all want a return to some sort of normality. I am not in anyway arguging against that idea but using language evoking imagery of slavery and oppression I feel isn't helpful and is massively hyperbolic. I do accept though that these things are relative and some people are suffering very badly.

    The longer we keep this safety net beyond what is necessary, the less we have to provide a necessary safety net to those most in need when we emerge from this. The consequences are serious cuts to the most in need which will be a higher proportion of society. The Govt. are all over the place on this and we will all suffer as a result.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    This is utter nonsense

    It's not. Read the study

    Don't let facts get in front of your indifference towards the deaths of expendable elderly


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    The vast majority of the workforce in this country have some form of underline condition, asthma, people with high blood pressure, kidney problems, cystic fibrous, recovered from cancer , diabetes, chrones disease lthe list goes on

    If you took everyone out of the workforce that had the slightest underline condition there would be no work fource


    Do you work with asbestos or something?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭MrDavid1976


    The vast majority of the workforce in this country have some form of underline condition, asthma, people with high blood pressure, kidney problems, cystic fibrous, recovered from cancer , diabetes, chrones disease lthe list goes on

    If you took everyone out of the workforce that had the slightest underline condition there would be no work fource

    This is a strange form of mansplaining.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    This is also nonsense

    Convincing counter arguments as ever


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    wakka12 wrote: »
    It's not. Read the study

    Don't let facts get in front of your indifference towards the deaths of expendable elderly

    No it was suggested in the post that if you make it to 70 you will make it to 90 only for an execption like Covid.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Few people are in fear, mostly just common decency and regard for the life of elderly people. 'Some people', yeah, just a few hundred thousand in Europe in 8 weeks, very considerate.

    Life expectancy at age 80 for a westerner is much higher than most people think. For an American woman it is 9 years, for men it is 7 more years.
    Irish victims in their late seventies and early 80's would have a lot of years left to live if not for covid.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7565998

    It is different to the average age of death in Ireland which is 80 , a figure which is dragged down massively by people who die young of suicide, car crashes, child mortality, sudden adult deaths, accidents,murder, very unhealthy lifestyles, middle aged people getting cancer, whatever.

    If you make it to your 70s or early 80s, you are more than likely going to make it to around 90 years old before you die, barring an exception such as this pandemic.

    Most elderly people that died of Covid, were already dying of something else. Late stages of cancer, heart disease, advanced COPD.

    Sadly, old people die.

    But even the elderly are sick of lockdown. Why waste your remaining years in lockdown? Most elderly people spend a large part of life trying to find a better future for their children and grand children. Horrible to die knowing the place is burning to the ground.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    I am not in anyway arguging against that idea but using language evoking imagery of slavery and oppression I feel isn't helpful and is massively hyperbolic and actually tends to undermine the sentiment because it sounds so ridiculous.

    "Let my people go" - Exodus 7:16 ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭Birdie Num Num


    Been on house arrest for 9 weeks is harder when you realise we are hiding in fear from a mild illness that kills some people over 80 with very serious underlying issues.

    Over 1 million out of work when less than 100 under 65 have died. How do we justify that?

    Screwing over the majority of the population for the minority. That’s not how a democracy should work.

    Ah cone on. You’re not Nelson Mandela or living in Bergamo. You were advised to stay at home and had the liberty to travel to the shops. Walk, run, cycle, crawl or wheel yourself within 2k, now 5k, of your home.

    You keep ramming this mild illness lark too. It is mild for many and deadly for many too but thankfully not as many. In my life time I have know of one person that died of influenza. In 3 months I know of several who have died of Covid 19 and two seriously ill. A range of ages from 40s to 80s.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Convincing counter arguments as ever

    So every single citizen in the workforce has serious health issues??
    I imagine that would be typical of a workforce involved in the clean up of Chernobyl.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Most elderly people that died of Covid, were already dying of something else. Late stages of cancer, heart disease, advanced COPD.

    Sadly, old people die.

    But even the elderly are sick of lockdown. Why waste your remaining years in lockdown? Most elderly people spend a large part of life trying to find a better future for their children and grand children. Horrible to die knowing the place is burning to the ground.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-warning-as-major-study-finds-most-elderly-victims-would-not-have-died-otherwise-11980675
    Wrong on that one mate.
    Sorry that it doesn't fit the narrative of this thread that over one hundred thousand people in Europe with many years left of life have died in the space of two months


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Most elderly people that died of Covid, were already dying of something else. Late stages of cancer, heart disease, advanced COPD.

    Sadly, old people die.

    But even the elderly are sick of lockdown. Why waste your remaining years in lockdown? Most elderly people spend a large part of life trying to find a better future for their children and grand children. Horrible to die knowing the place is burning to the ground.


    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-warning-as-major-study-finds-most-elderly-victims-would-not-have-died-otherwise-11980675
    Wrong on that one mate.
    Sorry that it doesn't fit the narrative of this thread that over one hundred thousand people in Europe with many years left of life have died in the space of two months


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭bill murray


    This is also nonsense

    Is it really, which part,

    Would you care to correct my post and where I am gone wrong doctor.... 🙄


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    wakka12 wrote: »
    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-warning-as-major-study-finds-most-elderly-victims-would-not-have-died-otherwise-11980675
    Wrong on that one mate.
    Sorry that it doesn't fit the narrative of this thread that over one hundred thousand people in Europe with many years left of life have died in the space of two months

    Ok so reading that, what the "leading scientist" thinks is that those people "wouldnt of died".
    I wonder is the leading scientist Neil Ferguson


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    Is it really, which part,

    Would you care to correct my post and where I am gone wrong doctor.... ��

    That every single person in the workforce has a serious underlying condition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    No it was suggested in the post that if you make it to 70 you will make it to 90 only for an execption like Covid.

    Do you have a study to counter the one posted ? The study in question clearly showed that most people who are 80 will make it to their late eighties or even 90. Your disagreeing with this published study based on what? Your personal belief?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    The vast majority of the workforce in this country have some form of underline condition, asthma, people with high blood pressure, kidney problems, cystic fibrous, recovered from cancer , diabetes, chrones disease lthe list goes on

    If you took everyone out of the workforce that had the slightest underline condition there would be no work fource

    So you think the alternative of keeping one million people out of work is preferable, just because some people with underlying conditions might be unable to to return to their employment?
    And where did you pull that list from?
    The ‘vast majority’ of the workforce do not suffer from cystic fibrosis, cancer and kidney problems among the other ailments on your list, and regardless that still does not justify not allowing everyone else return to their jobs.

    Anyone who wants to cocoon can cocoon, it won’t be compulsory and regardless of age/health many won’t be bothered with it at all. I have asthma myself and no way would I let that stop me from living my life and being a contributing member of society.
    I know plenty of elderly people and others with underlying conditions who fear the isolation and loneliness more than they fear the virus itself and are looking forward to restrictions being eased.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭WhiteMemento9


    The longer we keep this safety net beyond what is necessary, the less we have to provide and type safety net to those most in need when we emerge from this. The consequences are serious cuts to most in need which will be a higher proportion of society. The Govt. are all over the place on this and we will all suffer as a result.

    We have not even got close to a time when they can be deemed unnecessary. Removal of those saftey nets before significant portions of society have the ability and opportunity to return to work is not going to happen. I am always more concerned with measures that protect the overall majority of people than fringes cases that exploit the situation or a minioity or people who will be disincentivised to return to work at this time.

    Austerity and future cuts aren't even a conversation worth considering at this point as we have no real indication of the long term impact Globally or locally within the economic landscape in the longterm. We are borrowing at extremely low interest rate and the impact won't be massively noticeable in the longterm if things recover in a meaningful way. If things turn out badly then taking about removing the saftey net to save money now that helps in the future is like saying you can plug holes in a dam with a few plasters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭Ginger n Lemon


    wakka12 wrote: »
    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-warning-as-major-study-finds-most-elderly-victims-would-not-have-died-otherwise-11980675
    Wrong on that one mate.
    Sorry that it doesn't fit the narrative of this thread that over one hundred thousand people in Europe with many years left of life have died in the space of two months

    Your professor says covid is as dangerous as ebola. Ebola mortality rate is 50%.

    Credability is all lost instantly. Fintan was right, nonsense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭bill murray


    That every single person in the workforce has a serious underlying condition.

    Do I have to repeat the conditions again? A vast portion of the work force come under the bracket of underlying condition or have some form of underlying condition

    So if you leave everyone at home that fall into the bracket it seriously hampers any workforce


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭Ginger n Lemon


    We have not even got close to a time when they can be deemed unnecessary. Removal of those saftey nets before significant portions of society have the ability and opportunity to return to work is not going to happen. I am always more concerned with measures that protect the overall majority of people than fringes cases that exploit the situation or a minioity or people who will be disincentivised to return to work at this time.

    Austerity and future cuts aren't even a conversation worth considering at this point as we have no real indication of the long term impact Globally or locally within the economic landscape in the longterm. We are borrowing at extremely low interest rate and the impact won't be massively noticeable in the longterm if things recover in a meaningful way. If things turn out badly then taking about removing the saftey net to save money now that helps in the future is like saying you can plug holes in a dam with a few plasters.

    But the overall majority of population will have no symptoms to mild symptoms from covid. Why are you still concerned?

    PS you cant borrow your way out of trouble. Thats rule number 1 of finance


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,337 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    growleaves wrote: »
    'Many years of lockdown'? What dream world are you living in? European societies could collapse unless they come out of lockdown.

    I never they said there should years of lockdown. I said you’d have to sustain lockdown for years to kill as many as Covid has already.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭bill murray


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So you think the alternative of keeping one million people out of work is preferable, just because some people with underlying conditions might be unable to to return to their employment?
    And where did you pull that list from?
    The ‘vast majority’ of the workforce do not suffer from cystic fibrosis, cancer and kidney problems among the other ailments on your list, and regardless that still does not justify not allowing everyone else return to their jobs.

    Anyone who wants to cocoon can cocoon, it won’t be compulsory and regardless of age/health many won’t be bothered with it at all. I have asthma myself and no way would I let that stop me from living my life and being a contributing member of society.
    I know plenty of elderly people and others with underlying conditions who fear the isolation and loneliness more than they fear the virus itself and are looking forward to restrictions being eased.

    You should become a fiction writer.... This stuff is pure gold!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,337 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Its a very small shift in the economic fortunes of a country that will cost more life than Covid. This is primarily killing end of life and terminally ill.

    How do you calculate this? We know roughly how many have died from Covid. How many has the lockdown killed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭bill murray


    But the overall majority of population will have no symptoms to mild symptoms from covid. Why are you still concerned?

    PS you cant borrow your way out of trouble. Thats rule number 1 of finance

    And you think that we would avoid rescission if we came out of full lock down while the likes of the USA and the UK were still in lockdown


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭MrDavid1976


    We have not even got close to a time when they can be deemed unnecessary. Removal of those saftey nets before significant portions of society have the ability and opportunity to return to work is not going to happen. I am always more concerned with measures that protect the overall majority of people than fringes cases that exploit the situation or a minioity or people who will be disincentivised to return to work at this time.

    Austerity and future cuts aren't even a conversation worth considering at this point as we have no real indication of the long term impact Globally or locally within the economic landscape in the longterm. We are borrowing at extremely low interest rate and the impact won't be massively noticeable in the longterm if things recover in a meaningful way. If things turn out badly then taking about removing the saftey net to save money now that helps in the future is like saying you can plug holes in a dam with a few plasters.

    You miss the point. I agree with the current safety net but you cannot close things down beyond where they should be. This cash is for workers and is plugging the hole but only partly. Resources will be spent which will ultimately be dead money. I know of two businesses which are gone as of today - one of which May have survived if the plan had been implemented as planned - the Covid payments only partially helped.

    Bottom line is that we have gone beyond what we can afford if we are keeping business shut down beyond what is necessary.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement