Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 12:54PM

Responder XY wrote: »

It's very apparent that most of them don't!

Why, because they understand why restrictions are in place ?

I would say there is a very small minority that dont understand the economic cost to the last year

Whatsisname · 28-01-2021 12:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There certainly is a concerted effort in some quarters to manipulate and misrepresent reality and then to claim that anyone who questions the manipulation is somehow brainwashed or a shill who loves lockdown in an attempt to belittle and isolate the individual(s) as part of the ongoing echo chamber that this place has become

Tell me about it. We have posters saying we were never even told to stay at home now. Around and around we go.

Responder XY · 28-01-2021 12:56PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

Why, because they understand why restrictions are in place ?

I would say there is a very small minority that dont understand the economic cost to the last year

Economic costs are only a very small part of the costs that lockdown and restrictions have created. Very much secondary to the personal costs to people.

Edit - even at that, the economic costs are not understood anyway. Most undersand that there are economic costs, but this has not been sized and the wider impacts not undersood.

FintanMcluskey · 28-01-2021 12:56PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

You really think that people who understand why there is a need to have restrictions dont understand the cost this come at ?

Please stop. Seriously

Nobody said we don’t need restrictions.

Nobody

It’s the most remedial immature counter argument to say that someone has suggested we don’t need restrictions

28-01-2021 12:57PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

You really think that people who understand why there is a need to have restrictions dont understand the cost this come at ?

Out of interest, what do you understand the cost to be?

And what level of cost would lead you to be against lockdowns?

Graham · 28-01-2021 12:57PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah, so we need to have continuous lockdown in order to be able to avoid lockdown?

Jesus, some people will need to be fully deprogrammed from the brainwashing when this Covid hysteria eventually ends.

and it's those that understand the need for restriction that are the hysterical ones?

Whatsisname · 28-01-2021 12:58PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Please stop. Seriously

Nobody said we don’t need restrictions.

Nobody

It’s the most remedial immature counter argument to say that someone has suggested we don’t need restrictions

It's a flip of a coin.

Heads - I say you just want the pub.
Tails - I say you just want to let it rip.

francogarbanzo · 28-01-2021 01:01PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That comparison only works if you consider lockdown and death to be the same thing.

And they say those in favour of restrictions are the ones engaging in hysteria.

You're right. A person in a coma and a free, healthy, happy human being are living exactly equal amounts of life.

I'm making the distinction between life and "life", and still believe the comparison is relevant.

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 01:01PM

Responder XY wrote: »

Economic costs are only a very small part of the costs that lockdown and restrictions have created. Very much secondary to the personal costs to people.

Edit - even at that, the economic costs are not understood anyway. Most undersand that there are economic costs, but this has not been sized and the wider impacts not undersood.

I would think economic costs are more than a very small part , the knock on effect to economic costs will be great

francogarbanzo · 28-01-2021 01:05PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's relevant to an extent but you need to apply some kind of weighting to it. Comparing months spent in lockdown to months of life lost just turns what could be a reasonable point into hysteria.

That's a fair point to be honest. However, it's impossible to objectively weigh them. This allows each person to subjectively weigh it themselves. I don't think it's hysterical.

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 01:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, what do you understand the cost to be?

And what level of cost would lead you to be against lockdowns?

You want to explain about the financial cost, the job losses, the rise in depression , the loss of lives,

Firstly it is not a for or against lockdown. I have stated already that I understand the need for lockdown . I dont agree with a lot of what the government have and have not done but I understand the need for this lockdown

Windmill100000 · 28-01-2021 01:05PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Yes I understand that, my question is what are the specifics around that? For example, how many more deaths would occur due to people not getting a bed?

From my experience, the conversation about whether or not we should have lockdowns always stops at the "but we must not overwhelm the health system, otherwise it will collapse" point. But what I'm starting to understand is, well, yes, what if that happens? What specifically are we talking about, how long would it last, and is it worse than the damage caused by lockdowns? Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Maybe the answer is Yes. I don't know. I'm only bringing it up because it's difficult to say which is preferable when no specifics have been presented, only the spectre of "no capacity!"

No one can give you a definitive answer on the first question. Without ICU beds available it is a critical situation. I would not want to be sick in hospital now and know if I I deteriorated and needed a critical care bed that it would not be available to me. That is a crisis any way you look at it. Even moreso if neighbouring counties are also at capacity.

Until ICU bed numbers reduce we will remain in lockdown, whether people agree with it or not that is hat is going to happen

ypres5 · 28-01-2021 01:07PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This has been happening both ways on the thread to be fair. No one has said they want lockdown forever either but that doesn't stop people from claiming people do over and over again.

but the question has to be asked for people who are in favour of restrictions, at what point is enough enough? when do you say the restrictions have gone on long enough?

covid is endemic, it's not going anywhere anytime soon even with a vaccine and theres always going to be the possibility it'll mutate and be vaccine resistant so hypothetically we can stay in restrictions indefinitely using the logic we're using at the moment

I'm not saying this to put words in people's mouths or provoke anyone I just want to understand your pov

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 01:17PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Please stop. Seriously

Nobody said we don’t need restrictions.

Nobody

It’s the most remedial immature counter argument to say that someone has suggested we don’t need restrictions

Sorry fintan I asked did you really think people who know the need for restrictions dont understand the cost ?

Can you show where i stated someone said we dont need restrictions ?

Penfailed · 28-01-2021 01:19PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like I said last night, on 5th of March it will be level 5 in everything but name perhaps.

They should just come out and say lockdown until mid summer at least.

For me, restaurants at least need to be open before I would even consider it not a lockdown.

Why though? You'll have freedom of movement, therefore, you won't be locked down.

FintanMcluskey · 28-01-2021 01:21PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

Sorry fintan I asked did you really think people who know the need for restrictions dont understand the cost ?

Can you show where i stated someone said we dont need restrictions ?

Everyone in this forum knows the need for restrictions.

Nobody can justify the cost effectiveness of stay at home orders and business closures.

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 01:24PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Everyone in this forum knows the need for restrictions.

Nobody can justify the cost effectiveness of stay at home orders and business closures.

Obviously the government and NPHET think it's justified or it wouldn't happen

Graham · 28-01-2021 01:30PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd like to see the current restrictions ease significantly provided the numbers continue to decline.

+1

Sounds like a remarkably sensible position.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Everyone in this forum knows the need for restrictions.

:eek:

facehugger99 · 28-01-2021 01:32PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

Obviously the government and NPHET think it's justified or it wouldn't happen

That's hilarious.

NPHET are single-issue zealots who define success or failure through Covid case-numbers and nothing else.

The Government are just following the public mood, primarily using social-media as a barometer of same. They are not thinking any further than what will get them approval or votes. They are cowards who will think noting of spending billions of our money to shield themselves from taking any kind of responsibility .

Do you actually think there is any cost-benefit analysis being carried out at the moment to examine lockdowns and see if they are providing value?

Are the media encouraging debate on the subject or just ramping up the hysteria to generate clicks?

There's a lot of people who will finally wake up to the cost of this nonsense when it's far too late.

polesheep · 28-01-2021 01:33PM

SAMTALK wrote: »

Polesheep This is what i'm referring to. How may people realistically have this imagine of a scene from WW1.

You cannot make a general remark like this and lob everyone into it that doesnt agree with poster.

But there are people who have that kind of image. My wife describes her current working conditions as 'kept going'. Yet some people are convinced that she's working in something akin to MASH. Of course that's not everyone, but it's nigh on impossible to convince some of them that it's not like the scenario they envisage.

28-01-2021 01:33PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What?????

Science and reality gets filed into conspiracy theories now it seems

Science? Where?

Boggles · 28-01-2021 01:35PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's hilarious.

NPHET are single-issue zealots who define success or failure through Covid case-numbers and nothing else.

The Government are just following the public mood, primarily using social-media as a barometer of same. They are not thinking any further than what will get them approval or votes. They are cowards who will think noting of spending billions of our money to shield themselves from taking any kind of responsibility .

Do you actually think there is any cost-benefit analysis being carried out at the moment to examine lockdowns and see if they are providing value?

Are the media encouraging debate on the subject or just ramping up the hysteria to generate clicks?

There's a lot of people who will finally wake up to the cost of this nonsense when it's far too late.

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed, the vast majority of it self imposed.

It really is reaching CT levels of bizarreness.

The defense rests Your Honor.

Ginger n Lemon · 28-01-2021 01:35PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's hilarious.

NPHET are single-issue zealots who define success or failure through Covid case-numbers and nothing else.

The Government are just following the public mood, primarily using social-media as a barometer of same. They are not thinking any further than what will get them approval or votes. They are cowards who will think noting of spending billions of our money to shield themselves from taking any kind of responsibility .

Do you actually think there is any cost-benefit analysis being carried out at the moment to examine lockdowns and see if they are providing value?

Are the media encouraging debate on the subject or just ramping up the hysteria to generate clicks?

There's a lot of people who will finally wake up to the cost of this nonsense when it's far too late.

It isnt. Because costs exceed benefits, but decision was made BEFORE such analysis was done. and ofcourse never published... why publish something that tells you made a mistake?

Unfortunately people arent smart enough to realize this.

Silentcorner · 28-01-2021 01:42PM

We all have different situations we are coping with, but in my mid forties, as tough as this is, I'll get by and return to normal quickly.

But the elderly and in particular the young are the key demographics that are going to pay an awful heavy price, at those ages a year is much more precious to the individual...we are taking that time from then without so much as a cursory glance at whether it is worth it to do to them.

A year into this, I do know a few who have been floored by Covid, I know more who didn't even break a sweat dealing with it, but everyone I know, most households in the country has been impacted in a negative way, even if you cannot see it, the anxiety in our kids and elderly will be evident for years to come.

What we are doing to our young, energetic, vibrant youth is sick, in my opinion.

Turtwig · 28-01-2021 01:43PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd like to see the current restrictions ease significantly provided the numbers continue to decline. If we got to a point where the hospitals were getting overwhelmed again, I'd like to see restrictions increased again. I expect that as more people get vaccinated the likelihood of this happening will decrease. I understand that some people will say the hospitals get overwhelmed every winter, but what seems to get ignored is we're not under restrictions every winter.

I think in general we've been too slow to open up when numbers decrease, but at the same time I can understand the caution. I can also understand why people, particularly those who have spent a large amount of the past year out of work, are getting extremely frustrated. I tend to give flippant responses on here but in all honesty I think it's a difficult and complicated situation and there's no clear correct solution.

Largely agree with this. I think we're far too reactionary and not any where near enough proactive. Too slow to ease out of restrictions (with the exception of end Nov level 5, that needed another fortnight to minimise risk of Christmas) and too slow to implement them when the situation starts deteriorating . The net result being we stay in the heavier restricted for much much longer than we otherwise could have had we adopted a proactive pragmatic approach.

This time around we have the question of the possible increased transmission of the new variants which may mean we find ourselves having to back track (hopefully not). What's key is if we do we do it promptly and swiftly lessening the more extreme restrictions delay for all.

Hospitals need to drop considerably more first. We need that safety net and also we need actual non covid care about to function to a much higher level than at present.

28-01-2021 01:53PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I understand that some people will say the hospitals get overwhelmed every winter, but what seems to get ignored is we're not under restrictions every winter.

There was never a precedent for restrictions before, and there was never a precedent for lockdowns or even a model for lockdowns in virology literature. So I think we need to be very careful that the precedent doesn't get called upon for eg: a bad flu season.

ypres5 · 28-01-2021 01:55PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There was never a precedent for restrictions before, and there was never a precedent for lockdowns or even a model for lockdowns in virology literature. So I think we need to be very careful that the precedent doesn't get called upon for eg: a bad flu season.

Exactly a lot of the terminology and arguments can be transplanted over to the flu season all the government would have to do is find the right way to dress it up for public consumption

SAMTALK · 28-01-2021 01:56PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's hilarious.

NPHET are single-issue zealots who define success or failure through Covid case-numbers and nothing else.

The Government are just following the public mood, primarily using social-media as a barometer of same. They are not thinking any further than what will get them approval or votes. They are cowards who will think noting of spending billions of our money to shield themselves from taking any kind of responsibility .

Do you actually think there is any cost-benefit analysis being carried out at the moment to examine lockdowns and see if they are providing value?

Are the media encouraging debate on the subject or just ramping up the hysteria to generate clicks?

There's a lot of people who will finally wake up to the cost of this nonsense when it's far too late.

I'd place more trust in them than people on here saying everything they do is wrong, is incorrect, is harmful etc

You can say 100 % that Government are following public mood and using social media as a barometer ?

Graham · 28-01-2021 01:57PM

Are we back to pretending Coronavirus is like the flu (again)?

Responder XY · 28-01-2021 01:58PM

Graham wrote: »

Are we back to pretending Coronavirus is like the flu (again)?

Nobody is doing that, put your strawman back in it's box.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings