Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

walus · 12-02-2021 02:42PM

dublinbando wrote: »

Wait so why is no one questioning how easy the hospitals are getting overwhelmed? Why aren't we building temporary hospitals? China built a full hospital in 10 days at the start of the pandemic!

I'm sure we could built temporary hospitals, albeit not as fast as Chinese. But in this country it will take 60 years to train the staff or so I hear.

.

francogarbanzo · 12-02-2021 02:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You must be near me. Shame about Balrath!
Makes zero sense

Yep, it was heartbreaking to see that. Just pushes more people to walk around the Hill of Tara.

Hope we can grab a pint someday when (if) the pubs open back up.

walus · 12-02-2021 02:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Search Balrath Woods on google. You’ll see temporarily closed. It’s actually fenced off. Been like that for some time.

Pathetic. How many people have caught Covid in the woods?

There is a good chance that a new, unheard of just yet, Nicaraguan variant is lurking from behind the trees. Of course it must be shut!

Multipass · 12-02-2021 02:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Search Balrath Woods on google. You’ll see temporarily closed. It’s actually fenced off. Been like that for some time.

Pathetic. How many people have caught Covid in the woods?

They’ve tried to close the woods near me, but people keep moving the tapes. Always plenty of cars there. It is a pathetic mentality that would try to close off woods.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 02:46PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

They think that if we hadn't gone into level 5 last Dec there would even have been more carnage.

I think every reasonable Irish person with their full facilities would agree with them.

ypres5 · 12-02-2021 02:48PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Probably a forlorn hope but I`ll ask it anyway, Any chance of some evidence for your sad story?

what are you looking for? a headline article in the new york times about it ? Or maybe a picture of a few trees

Hellrazer · 12-02-2021 02:49PM

walus wrote: »

I'm sure we could built temporary hospitals, albeit not as fast as Chinese. But in this country it will take 60 years to train the staff or so I hear. .

Ahem - Childrens Hospital!!

We`d be on Covid - 99 by the time we built a "temporary" hospital.

timsey tiger · 12-02-2021 02:50PM

dublinbando wrote: »

Wait so why is no one questioning how easy the hospitals are getting overwhelmed? Why aren't we building temporary hospitals? China built a full hospital in 10 days at the start of the pandemic!

Who will staff them?

dublinbando · 12-02-2021 02:51PM

timsey tiger wrote: »

Who will staff them?

Oh yeah I forgot they don't like to pay nurses a fair wage

Hector Savage · 12-02-2021 02:52PM

castletownman wrote: »

I have made it a custom of mine to not listen to any of the covid news, skipping through the dedicated articles in the local and national papers, and only catching the daily figures when they pop up on my phone. The only thread I follow on this sub-forum is the vaccine one, as it at least gives you hope and they cut through a lot of the bull****, with scientific reason.

However, I heard on the radio during lunch this afternoon that current restrictions may be in place until the summer, and I genuinely don't know how I will get through. I am finding this lockdown harder than the other two combined to the extent that I don't see much point of getting out of bed some days. My three-year contract with work is due to expire in May, and despite exploring the option of extending it to incorporate the weeks I have missed (will be eight months up to the March 5th "review"), it looks like it won't be granted. And due to the severe lockdowns across the country, the prospect of finding work in this climate is slim. My other part-time job, sports reporting for the local paper, is by the wayside indefinitely too. The only routine I have during the week is an online course of a Thursday evening which I am grateful of, and in fairness to myself I keep active.

Now May was always going to be the end of my contract, but at least if I was working as normal, I wouldn't be worrying about it. It's the endless nothingness in the day that manifests worry, and then not having any regular "distractions", even something simple like a quiet pint or two, makes it worse.

I know I will be fine, but I can see why mental health issues, and unfortunately suicides, are increasing. But at least the elderly are safe eh?

I was reading in the telegraph today that in the UK they are saying restrictions could be there untill the autumn, now believe it or not , I see that as good news, as lately I have been truly believing this will go on for years.

What I don't understand though is that the UK is on track to have most people vaccinated by the summer ?

Are they not working or what ?

How is the situation in Israel ?

Ironhead93 · 12-02-2021 02:54PM

dublinbando wrote: »

Wait so why is no one questioning how easy the hospitals are getting overwhelmed? Why aren't we building temporary hospitals? China built a full hospital in 10 days at the start of the pandemic!

Because many of our most qualified nurses fecked off to UAE or Australia where they can actually earn a living wage, don't blame them in the slightest. All these idle threats about 'hositals being overwhelmed' are down to HSE mismanagement they should clean up their own mess rather than making us suffer.

storker · 12-02-2021 02:57PM

josip wrote: »

Tubbs seems to have gone off the reservation though.

In what way? My wife usually watches the LLS, and as a nurse who has looked after COVID patients she would be the last to downplay anything about COVID, but she's been giving out lately about Tubridy spending too much time ramming COVID misery down people's throats. If she turns on the Late Late it's entertainment she's looking for.

VonLuck · 12-02-2021 02:58PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

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

Such a weak argument. Essentially you're saying that people die anyways, sure what does it matter if the figure increases.

I'm pretty sure that someone who is in the vulnerable category would prefer to live under restrictions for however many months if that means they'll survive the pandemic and continue to live a normal life for years afterwards. And the very few who don't feel that way, sure they're going to break the restrictions anyways.

weldoninhio · 12-02-2021 02:59PM

Multipass wrote: »

They’ve tried to close the woods near me, but people keep moving the tapes. Always plenty of cars there. It is a pathetic mentality that would try to close off woods.

They closed a massive park close to me. Absolutely ridiculous. They are reopening it this weekend though.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 03:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Search Balrath Woods on google. You’ll see temporarily closed. It’s actually fenced off. Been like that for some time.

Pathetic. How many people have caught Covid in the woods?

Revealing comment here.

https://www.facebook.com/balrathwoods

Quote:

To all users of Balrath Wood.

During the lockdown of Covid19, numbers of visitors to the wood greatly increased.
This has resulted in large scale erosion of the undergrowth which has led to many bare soil patches, especially under the trees. This in turn has degraded the biodiversity. To allow the wood to recover, we ask all users to

1) Stay on the designated paths and do not enter the areas under the trees
2) Always keep dogs on leads
3) Bring all waste home, including dog waste

Balrath Wood is a quiet space for walking and not an adventure playground or a public park. To keep the wood open and to maintain its high nature value, we respectfully ask you to adhere to these clear guidelines. Remember we are not the only ones to inhabit this beautiful woodland. Nature needs a space too.

Seems like there is more to the reason for the public closure of this wood than the way 1 or 2 posters here have made it out to be.

facehugger99 · 12-02-2021 03:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah great to see the thread growing. Good indication of how furious people are getting.

Even Tubridy getting annoyed now!

I'm highly dubious about people like this.

They spent months cheerleading the lockdown and pumping out the hysteria.

Once the negatives effect of our barmy lockdown strategy starts to become apparent, watch as they fall over themselves to switch sides and attempt to portray themselves as never having been in favour of such draconian restrictions.

completedit · 12-02-2021 03:06PM

VonLuck wrote: »

Such a weak argument. Essentially you're saying that people die anyways, sure what does it matter if the figure increases.

I'm pretty sure that someone who is in the vulnerable category would prefer to live under restrictions for however many months if that means they'll survive the pandemic and continue to live a normal life for years afterwards. And the very few who don't feel that way, sure they're going to break the restrictions anyways.

What? So your argument is we can justify mass lockdowns and all the negative outcomes that they inflict on people so can keep some people alive? Why didn't we do the same in 2017 when 100 people died of the flu in that 2 month period. Of course not as high as the numbers now, but those 100 people have families and loved ones. What is the figure of excess deaths we are okay with before we resort to the most restrictive draconian measures we could have ever envisioned.

First of all, if someone is vulnerable they can make the decision to cucoon themselves and they out of harms way.

How do you know they'll live a normal life? You're assuming Covid will go away. Hopefully the vaccines can help these people but they will always be vulnerable as we enter a world where Covid becames one of the many normal ways to die.

Restrictions don't come without trade offs which is why people are vehemently opposed to them. There are other people struggling because of the non health risks associated with Covid. Are you discounting the negative outcomes they will experience. It's not 2 weeks anymore. It's been nearly a year and likely to last longer of people don't begin to question these decisions.

Life doesn't revolve around the people who are vulnerable to the health impact of Covid. We have to consider society as a whole. We have to have a conversation about death and the numbers of excess mortality we are comfortable with in the middle of an alleged deadly pandemic. The number will always be arbitrary because people going forward will die because of the Covid 19 strain. We have to live with this reality.

facehugger99 · 12-02-2021 03:09PM

Multipass wrote: »

They’ve tried to close the woods near me, but people keep moving the tapes. Always plenty of cars there. It is a pathetic mentality that would try to close off woods.

It's the same near me.

A woodland walk that's been fenced off with barriers and "STOP. Closed due to COVID" signage.

Absolutely pathetic.

I take great pleasure in fcuking the barrier aside when I walk there every weekend.

francogarbanzo · 12-02-2021 03:10PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Seems like there is more to the reason for the public closure of this wood than the way 1 or 2 posters here have made it out to be.

1. Ban people from leaving their homes except for exercise within 5km.
2. More people than normal go to the small local forest.
3. Increased footfall causes some biological issue to the trees or soil.
4. The forest closes.

I don't see your point. The closure of the woods is a direct impact of the lockdown and the result is that we have no access to natural space. And man, walking everyday around a drab series of roundabouts is getting tiresome.

12-02-2021 03:13PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Revealing comment here.

https://www.facebook.com/balrathwoods

Quote:

To all users of Balrath Wood.

During the lockdown of Covid19, numbers of visitors to the wood greatly increased.
This has resulted in large scale erosion of the undergrowth which has led to many bare soil patches, especially under the trees. This in turn has degraded the biodiversity. To allow the wood to recover, we ask all users to

1) Stay on the designated paths and do not enter the areas under the trees
2) Always keep dogs on leads
3) Bring all waste home, including dog waste

Balrath Wood is a quiet space for walking and not an adventure playground or a public park. To keep the wood open and to maintain its high nature value, we respectfully ask you to adhere to these clear guidelines. Remember we are not the only ones to inhabit this beautiful woodland. Nature needs a space too.

Seems like there is more to the reason for the public closure of this wood than the way 1 or 2 posters here have made it out to be.

Shocker, some extra people visited the woods while every other social outlet was closed...

Time to close all woods. Can’t be having erosion of the undergrowth

Gael23 · 12-02-2021 03:15PM

VonLuck wrote: »

Such a weak argument. Essentially you're saying that people die anyways, sure what does it matter if the figure increases.

I'm pretty sure that someone who is in the vulnerable category would prefer to live under restrictions for however many months if that means they'll survive the pandemic and continue to live a normal life for years afterwards. And the very few who don't feel that way, sure they're going to break the restrictions anyways.

What about the 80% who are not vulnerable and who’s lives are being ruined by this?

12-02-2021 03:16PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm highly dubious about people like this.

They spent months cheerleading the lockdown and pumping out the hysteria.

Once the negatives effect of our barmy lockdown strategy starts to become apparent, watch as they fall over themselves to switch sides and attempt to portray themselves as never having been in favour of such draconian restrictions.

Someone shared a twitter post here or another page around yesterday some big names starting to grumble now about when it’s going to end. Think people genuinely fed up. Midterm from school next week and nowhere for kids to go and nothing for them to do. Unfortunately feel the mental fallout will be huge if things don’t start moving along at a faster pace now. Depressing time, feel for the kids hugely.

francogarbanzo · 12-02-2021 03:17PM

Gael23 wrote: »

What about the 80% who are not vulnerable and who’s lives are being ruined by this?

Wait, wait, let me try...

"80% of peoples' lives are being ruined? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?!"

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 03:17PM

VonLuck wrote: »

Such a weak argument. Essentially you're saying that people die anyways, sure what does it matter if the figure increases.

I'm pretty sure that someone who is in the vulnerable category would prefer to live under restrictions for however many months if that means they'll survive the pandemic and continue to live a normal life for years afterwards. And the very few who don't feel that way, sure they're going to break the restrictions anyways.

I’ve asked it to people before and I will ask it again. Do you think we should lock down every winter to prevent the spread of illness?

It’s easy to call something a “weak argument” based on talking about deaths increasing. But what number of deaths are you OK with? How many people do you think it is acceptable should have to die so that you can have the kind of normality you want? Maybe it’s a proportionate increase in average annual deaths based on population increase — in which case your stance would be “oh people die anyway what does it matter if the number doesn’t decrease”?

If you don’t want to lock down every winter, or indeed lockdown at whatever other times of year detailed studies show there is normally an increase of deaths, don’t you think that those people who die in those periods would rather live on for many years after that? Are you going to be morally consistent and say we should lock down for them too, or are you happy to come right on out and say that their lives are a price worth paying for normality?

Loafing Oaf · 12-02-2021 03:19PM

completedit wrote: »

First of all, if someone is vulnerable they can make the decision to cucoon themselves and they out of harms way.

Fine in theory but impossible in reality when the virus is widespread in the community.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 03:20PM

completedit wrote: »

What? So your argument is we can justify mass lockdowns and all the negative outcomes that they inflict on people so can keep some people alive? Why didn't we do the same in 2017 when 100 people died of the flu in that 2 month period. Of course not as high as the numbers now, but those 100 people have families and loved ones. What is the figure of excess deaths we are okay with before we resort to the most restrictive draconian measures we could have ever envisioned.

First of all, if someone is vulnerable they can make the decision to cucoon themselves and they out of harms way.

How do you know they'll live a normal life? You're assuming Covid will go away. Hopefully the vaccines can help these people but they will always be vulnerable as we enter a world where Covid becames one of the many normal ways to die.

Restrictions don't come without trade offs which is why people are vehemently opposed to them. There are other people struggling because of the non health risks associated with Covid. Are you discounting the negative outcomes they will experience. It's not 2 weeks anymore. It's been nearly a year and likely to last longer of people don't begin to question these decisions.

Life doesn't revolve around the people who are vulnerable to the health impact of Covid. We have to consider society as a whole. We have to have a conversation about death and the numbers of excess mortality we are comfortable with in the middle of an alleged deadly pandemic. The number will always be arbitrary because people going forward will die because of the Covid 19 strain. We have to live with this reality.

You almost held it together....almost.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 03:22PM

ypres5 wrote: »

what are you looking for? a headline article in the new york times about it ? Or maybe a picture of a few trees

What I am looking for is simple evidence or back up for claims which for some reason certain posters here seem to be continually reluctant to supply. BTW not surprised to read this type of condescending reply from you.

completedit · 12-02-2021 03:26PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I’ve asked it to people before and I will ask it again. Do you think we should lock down every winter to prevent the spread of illness?

It’s easy to call something a “weak argument” based on talking about deaths increasing. But what number of deaths are you OK with? How many people do you think it is acceptable should have to die so that you can have the kind of normality you want? Maybe it’s a proportionate increase in average annual deaths based on population increase — in which case your stance would be “oh people die anyway what does it matter if the number doesn’t decrease”?

If you don’t want to lock down every winter, or indeed lockdown at whatever other times of year detailed studies show there is normally an increase of deaths, don’t you think that those people who die in those periods would rather live on for many years after that? Are you going to be morally consistent and say we should lock down for them too, or are you happy to come right on out and say that their lives are a price worth paying for normality?

Can someone actually answer these questions.

I see Lucinda Creighton posted a tweet in which she brought up how the sense of agency about getting back to normal has completely gone from Government. It's now been replaced with vague soundings about giving us choices.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 03:26PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I’ve asked it to people before and I will ask it again. Do you think we should lock down every winter to prevent the spread of illness?

It’s easy to call something a “weak argument” based on talking about deaths increasing. But what number of deaths are you OK with? How many people do you think it is acceptable should have to die so that you can have the kind of normality you want? Maybe it’s a proportionate increase in average annual deaths based on population increase — in which case your stance would be “oh people die anyway what does it matter if the number doesn’t decrease”?

If you don’t want to lock down every winter, or indeed lockdown at whatever other times of year detailed studies show there is normally an increase of deaths, don’t you think that those people who die in those periods would rather live on for many years after that? Are you going to be morally consistent and say we should lock down for them too, or are you happy to come right on out and say that their lives are a price worth paying for normality?

Fantastic, I'm glad you brought that up again because I asked you the same question and you ignored it.

So, do tell?

What number of deaths are you okay with?

completedit · 12-02-2021 03:33PM

Boggles wrote: »

Fantastic, I'm glad you brought that up again because I asked you the same question and you ignored it.

So, do tell?

What number of deaths are you okay with?[/QUOTE

That's an extremely complicated question to answer. There are so many factors to consider and weigh into such a discussion. I've said it before but a more grown up society would be able to have the moral courage to consider and discuss this.

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings