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

‘The lockdown is causing so many deaths’

Dr Malcolm Kendrick on the disastrous response to Covid-19.

We are over-recording it because elderly people die quite often, and we may say they have died of Covid-19 but not know that was the case. Therefore there will have been a number of people who died of other things who have been recorded as dying of Covid-19. Equally, there will be people who died of Covid-19 but the GP did not know, so did not put it on the certificate. It really depends on how people decide to record the death.

The really concerning thing is that if all the deaths taking place during lockdown are put down as Covid-19 deaths, we are going to miss the fact that the lockdown policies have caused an increase in deaths from many other things. There has been a 50 per cent reduction in people turning up to A&E. It is clear that people just do not want to bother the doctors. And a number of these people will be dying. If we muddle the Covid-19 statistics in with the other statistics, we might think the lockdown has prevented a certain number of deaths, when it has actually caused a large number of deaths.

We are spending as much on Covid-19 as we would spend on the NHS in three normal years. You have got to ask the question of what we are going to get from that. Refusing to engage that question is political cowardice. Politicians have just said they did what everyone else did and so we cannot blame them for anything that has happened. It was only Sweden that did not go down that route, and Japan, too, which has had very few deaths.

I have looked at the impact of social upheaval in the post-Soviet Union countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Russia had five million excess deaths in that period due to economic problems. That is how powerful the effects can be. We are going to see the downsides of lockdown policies around the world.

s1ippy wrote: »

I would in my eye post that info up here. The "restriction lifting" fanatics are the last people I'd want to be camped up beside.

I'd say your safe enough tbh

greensheep777 wrote: »

Oh sweetie, whatever you learned, you've clearly forgotten. It can be transmitted through pregnancy, breastfeeding, blood transfusions, and many other ways. But of course, we only know that in hindsight. At the time it was a total unknown, as coronavirus was. So I'll ask the question that nobody was unable to answer - when this disease was first discovered killing people in their thousands - where was the lockdown?

No , haven't forgotten . Lived through it , lost a good friend to it so will never forget.
HIV.. Bodily fluid borne but the epidemic you talk about was sexual transmission first but also transmitted by needle , transfusion and pregnancy. None of these are transmissions that are infectious in the way this virus is nor do they warrant a lockdown. Precautions , yes .

TB has been around a long time . Its transmission is much more limited that a virus like Covid 19 , although infectious. There have been spikes of infection though
Young people were detained forcibly in some cases, in sanitariums or large institutions , and kept segregated, to prevent socialization and spread of the bacterium before a treat ment was found in the late 50s ..in Ireland !. One of my relatives was , and a lot of my family would have had contact .

Abortion is legal here in Ireland , yes, and it is very narrow minded of you to extrapolate that anybody here may or may not have been pro life or pro choice depending on their viewpoint on the present situation .
That ...says it all , as far as I am concerned . That you would even talk about these issues , which are not relevant to this discussion at all , shows how you are just dragging stuff up trying to justify some sort of picture in your head about Ireland and anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint .

fr336 wrote: »

Must consume must consume

I dont follow what you mean?

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

None. Why is me going to south of Spain, and some German lads coming over to temple bar - bad for Irish economy and Irish tourism?

That can't happen because you dont wanna take a little risk welcoming foreign visitors?

This is a good example of the standard Ginger debating tactic in action.

You, Naos, asked does he not see the contradiction in complaining, constantly, about the damage being done to the Irish economy, while expressing the view that he'd prefer to spend his money abroad.

Rather than dealing with that proposition, he deflects and throws in the caveat of a German tourist coming the other way, which he was never asked about and has no relevance to the initial question.

It's quite clever really because nine times out of ten the responding poster gets caught up in the added in element and it shifts the focus away from Ginger providing a straight answer. It's classic and very deliberate moving of the goalposts.

Arghus wrote: »

This is a good example of the standard Ginger debating tactic in action.

You, Naos, asked does he not see the contradiction in complaining, constantly, about the damage being done to the Irish economy, while expressing the view that he'd prefer to spend his money abroad.

Rather than dealing with that proposition, he deflects and throws in the caveat of a German tourist coming the other way, which he was never asked about and has no relevance to the initial question.

It's quite clever really because nine times out of ten the responding poster gets caught up in the added in element and it shifts the focus away from Ginger providing a straight answer. It's classic and very deliberate moving of the goalposts.

He should be a politician!!

It's quite clever really because nine times out of ten the responding poster gets caught up in the added in element and it shifts the focus away from Ginger providing a straight answer.

He did give a straight answer. He said 'None' (meaning he does not see any contradiction). Then he explained his reasoning.

You're assuming that economic patriotism has to take a protectionist form, which is debatable. I see the logic but haven't heard anything like it since the Guaranteed Irish campaign in the 1990s. It seems to have sprung up again merely as a timely debating tactic.

growleaves wrote: »

He did give a straight answer. He said 'None' (meaning he does not see any contradiction). Then he explained his reasoning.

You're assuming that economic patriotism has to take a protectionist form, which is debatable. I see the logic but haven't heard anything like it since the Guaranteed Irish campaign in the 1990s. It seems to have sprung up again merely as a timely debating tactic.

From whats been posted recently it seems quiet a few will holiday in Ireland. Couldnt be supporting crippled irish travel agents or 2 of the largest airlines in the world which are both Irish and have been obliterated.

Nah they will holiday in Ireland, perhaps the Curragh, with their horses, all aptly named "moral high".

The government do not really want Irish people travelling abroad, because there's a chance some will come back with the virus, without even knowing it. On comparison with other country's we have a limited no of icu beds and a limited no of medical staff to cope with a pandemic.
We are not like the USA. We can't print money.
There's a limit to how much the government can borrow to get through this crisis and revive the economy.
I have no wish to go to a pub where you may have to sit 6 feet from anyone else.
Will a pub in Asia or Greece be safer to go to
than a Irish pub?
I think the government is doing the best it can
under the circumstances and following the advice of medical experts

Arghus wrote: »

This is a good example of the standard Ginger debating tactic in action.

You, Naos, asked does he not see the contradiction in complaining, constantly, about the damage being done to the Irish economy, while expressing the view that he'd prefer to spend his money abroad.

Rather than dealing with that proposition, he deflects and throws in the caveat of a German tourist coming the other way, which he was never asked about and has no relevance to the initial question.

It's quite clever really because nine times out of ten the responding poster gets caught up in the added in element and it shifts the focus away from Ginger providing a straight answer. It's classic and very deliberate moving of the goalposts.

Fully agreed.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

None. Why is me going to south of Spain, and some German lads coming over to temple bar - bad for Irish economy and Irish tourism?

That can't happen because you dont wanna take a little risk welcoming foreign visitors?

Why can't you spend your money here for just one year and have a pint in the West with your German tourist friend? The Irish economy & Irish tourism get a double win and gets back on it's feet quicker.

growleaves wrote: »

Are you expecting us to take that seriously?
It goes back to 1900 and includes 2 world wars , lol !

fr336 wrote: »

Using a cafe as an office during a pandemic, this just gets better lol

Sounds like a business owner taking their responsibilities seriously, and being slagged off here by the "it's just a flu" crowd. Anyone sitting indoors for a long period in a pub or cafe is unwise at best.

When this is all over we are going to look back at those businesses which took the p**s, and those which acted responsibly. I'll be voting with my feet.