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

Deleted User wrote: »

Try read the post I replied to.
Specifically mentioned busy A+E.

I know. I read it. COVID patients are told not to attend A&E, and suspected COVIDS cases are brought in using a separate entrance, at least that's was I was told about St. Vincents, and it's not unreasonable to assume that the same is true of other hospitals. It's bed and particularly ICU capacity that is the concern, not numbers attending A&E.

(In fact the reduced numbers attending A&E is an interesting indication of how many unnecessary visits were being made pre-COVID.)

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The problem is though that calling for balance means being ready for the very inevitable follow-up question of “So you think more deaths is an appropriate price to pay for that?” ....and being able to say “Yes, and here is why”.

So far, the people in positions of power have shown little appetite to run that gauntlet. The reasons for having more balance are nuanced and often complex — it risks coming across as cold philosophy — while simply saying “Lockdown saves lives and here is a picture of an old person dying on a ventilator so anyone who supports reopening is a cold hearted monster” is a much easier, less complicated, and less reputationally risky position to take.

The advantage that the supporters of the government strategy have is that they can point to tangible occurring things — they can show images from hospitals and point at hard numbers like deaths. Those who criticise the government’s strategy have to rely on more abstract concepts (though nonetheless real) and can’t dredge up photographs of future disasters to come from the socioeconomic crisis wrought by the global shutdown or hard data on why the loss of liberty must always be balanced — and not always trumped — by the loss of life.

I think there needs to be a balance that while a small number may die, for the greater good of society we need to open up

storker wrote: »

Unbelievable (almost) that you're still posting rubbish like this. There's is more to a hospital than A&E, which is just one function within a much larger unit. The reason that nobody has been left to die because of the measures that you're so against. I saw a report recently from a hospital in the UK which had hit capacity and 25% of COVID admissions were under-50s.

What needs to stop is this it's no-more-serious-than-the-flu garbage, which in my opinion qualifies as dangerous misinformation and should be treated accordingly.

As for people getting out from under the bed, maybe you should try it. It might explain why so few facts are actually getting through to you. Of course, the irony in someone who's been here day in day out typing the same rubbish daily for nearly a year making disparaging comments about other peoples lives is just too rich not to savour...

The poster who you are referring to constantly parrots the same "it`s only a mild respiratory illness" nonsense and when challenged to back up his claims with evidence never does so.

VonLuck wrote: »

And when the anti-restriction folk use the emotive argument about grandparents not being able to see their families it's perfectly fine, is it?

The thing is, restriction won’t stop death

30,000+ people pass on each year in Ireland

So the hyperbolic drivel about deaths is easily rationalised by the fact death is part of life.

Living is also part of life, that we have stopped without rational reason

BTownB wrote: »

Tegnell has to point out the risk and incentivise people to follow the rules they have (again it's not a free-reign, let it rip scenario).

People are sick the of rules.

It's why Sweden are heading more towards us then we are to them.

There strategy is based on a compliant populous, and as I have all ready explained to you that is now split.

Not a good place to be, when they are admitting the more transmissible UK strain is now becoming dominant.

If people are tired of voluntarily restrictions, imposing those restrictions by law is just going to create further division and apathy.

That's before you even move onto the reality of 12,000+ people dead and almost 5000 people pushed through their ICU's.

It is one way it is remarkable what they have achieved, but it was always going to come to a head.

Boggles wrote: »

People are sick the of rules.

It's why Sweden are heading more towards us then we are to them.

There strategy is based on a compliant populous, and as I have all ready explained to you that is now split.

Not a good place to be, when they are admitting the more transmissible UK strain is now becoming dominant.

If people are tired of voluntarily restrictions, imposing those restrictions by law is just going to create further division and apathy.

That's before you even move onto the reality of 12,000+ people dead and almost 5000 people pushed through their ICU's.

It is one way it is remarkable what they have achieved, but it was always going to come to a head.

Those numbers are not what justified our lockdown last March for 2 weeks

We agreed to lockdown for 2 weeks to flatten the curve and prevent 10 times the above numbers dying in Ireland

thebaz wrote: »

Utter nonsense - you protect the people most at risk , the people most at risk are those over 75 - you rationale is lock down everyone regardless if they are at risk - that is the nonsense

Jesus, the cohort that need ICU the most are 55-70 years of age. 3 times I have said it now.

Like I have all ready explained if you are 75+ you only have a slim chance of getting near ICU.

You can't run an effective health care service if your ICU's are full of patients with Covid.

They need to be full of patients recovering from life changing or life saving surgeries.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Judging by the countries and regions that didn't impose strict lockdowns - fcuk all.

You really believe that ? I mean, I know this is the Restrictions thread and all that goes with it, but do you really think the virus won't rip through a population ?

All the sunbelt states in the US, even the northern ones like the Dakotas - is that not enough evidence as to what might happen ?

Captain Pillowcase wrote: »

Hellraiser posted a list of TDs yesterday (Thanks for that btw) So this morning I made a list of senators and also some mental health charities who seem to be very very quiet in all this. I will be emailing them both. I will be adding senators to the TD list to voice my displeasure and also dismay at yet more leaks, dripping more doom and gloom into our lives via a hungry media desperate for the next headline or soundbite of misery and why there is no clarity whatsoever given on what these low numbers appear to be. I will be asking the charities why they have been so quiet and why none of them have highlighted in any visible way the toll this has taken on people.
And I can only speak for myself and those around me, but this time around, especially in the past few weeks a real anger has grown. I have noticed a turn in support for these measures which are viewed as ill thought out and lacking any real hope.

We need to also target this media misery train.
If we can isolate the “journalists” direct email from their media articles it would make for another addition to a proactive campaign against the madness.

Gael23 wrote: »

I think there needs to be a balance that while a small number may die, for the greater good of society we need to open up

Exactly, and what you are saying has (more or less) never been a controversial standpoint because it is precisely one of the fundamental subconscious bases on which we live out our daily lives in a way that makes life worth living. But it’s when people become conscious of the concept that they become uncomfortable with it — and even like to pretend that they don’t agree with it.

Take for example during the summer, I met a friend for a pint in the pub who I’ve been at loggerheads with on Covid restrictions from the word Go really (he was, at that time anyway, a strong supporter of the government’s strategy). He did however think it was good to have some things opened in the summer, so I put it to him: “Us all being in pubs and restaurants again probably means that the virus will spread more than it otherwise could, so basically what you are saying is that at least some people dying is a price worth paying for us to be here”. He mmm’d and aaah’d and got a bit animated and accused me of the usual “cold / immoral / unethical” ....all of course while he drank his pint in a bar with about 30 other people sitting somewhat close. He didn’t want to face the uncomfortable truth.

People aren’t comfortable when they are confronted with the great moral conundrum — our lives are lived often at the expense of our own health and the wellbeing of others. The only way of minimising that conundrum is to create some form of sterile, bland existence where we can almost never put ourselves and others at any form of risk (like spreading disease). And that’s the problem, once you put the words “people dying” and “greater good” into a sentence on, say, a political talk show — you run the risk of a backlash that could destroy your reputation and your career with it.

RobitTV wrote: »

“My father died at 46”

“I’m not going to start playing your game”

I love to see those populist presenters get the rug pulled from their immature conversation

As that guy said, 617,000 die each year in the Uk. All of those deaths are sad.

RobitTV wrote: »

He is right. We have tried our best over the last year. We cannot go on like this. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

This is a war time effort. And like all wars people have to go to the front line.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

“My father died at 46”

“I’m not going to start playing your game”

I love to see those populist presenters get the rug pulled from their immature conversation

As that guy said, 617,000 die each year in the Uk. All of those deaths are sad.

The face on the interviewer at the end