Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

completedit · 12-02-2021 04:08PM

It's all just opinion at the end of the day.

My argument is that people who are vulnerable can isolate and keep themselves healthy. If their loved ones take the required safety measures and deduce the risk of partaking in certain events(Kids returning to school, going to a bar or game) then we can achieve the best of both worlds. Nobody will ever be truly safe, but not will they be ever truly in danger. The risk of living will just continue as it always has done.

facehugger99 · 12-02-2021 04:09PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Learn something from you? I hope I never have to descend to so low a level as to take in any of your self entitled anti authority rabble rousing rants. By the way lad have you been been pushed off the road by Michael D again lately ?

U OK hon?

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 04:11PM

ypres5 wrote: »

im not going to get dragged into an argument but you accusing someone of making a condescending reply is peak irony

Are you denying it?

completedit · 12-02-2021 04:12PM

Boggles wrote: »

Well no, we live in a time where fact checking has never been easier, we also live in a time where people willingly chose not to do it.

So you get statements like this.

Should be more precise with my use of words. I'm on my phone which I don't like. That sort of phrase doesn't lend support to my argument.

When I say alleged deadly, I refer to the models from February and March that predicted catastrophic death tolls. That was always the rationale behind the scale of the lockdowns. That's my reference point. As the preliminary death statistics show this was not the case.

ypres5 · 12-02-2021 04:13PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

Are you denying it?

denying what? that the woods near your man were shut?

josip · 12-02-2021 04:13PM

Meanwhile in the real world

Germany will have difficulties making use of all available Covid-19 vaccines in April, chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with broadcaster ZDF on Friday, Reuters reports.
Once a 7-day coronavirus incidence of under 35 per 100,000 people is reached, further relaxations beyond the opening of shops may follow, she added.

We on the other hand won't see any reduction in restrictions unless we can maintain a 7-day incidence of less than 15 per 100,000 for 4 weeks.
We are being treated like toddlers.

"We saw at Christmas that you can't be trusted. So you'll all have to prove that we (NPHET) can trust you again."

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 04:14PM

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?

But see, I do not pontificate on death statistics. All I try to do is argue that even the saving of lives and the prolongation of life must be balanced with other interests — in contrast to the prevailing belief in public policy over the past year that to advocate balance is advocate nothing more than indiscriminate senicide.

My stance on these forums has always been that my argument is ethically deficient and that I myself am by no means morally perfect. What grates me are those, and I often find you to be among them, who talk to other posters on here like you have some divine access to a higher morality — that somehow you are the champion of the sanctity and value of human life, while others are just selfish cretins who think pints are more important than people.

So to answer the question. I am not OK with any death, but I accept that there is a question of proportion between allowing people to enjoy life and focusing purely on the prolongation of life. That element of “proportion” is a tough and very grey issue to unpack — I am humble enough to admit that I can’t give perfect answers on it. But when I apply my own level of proportion to this Covid crisis, it is clear to me that the virus is mainly killing people who have been fortunate enough to live very long lives (probably on average the longest living Irish people yet I imagine), and so I ask myself the question of proportionality : are the tactics we are employing to tackle this elevation of deaths, as tragic as it is, disproportionately depriving others who have not yet been able to live long fulfilled lives? Are we saddling people with years of misery, stress and (for some) poverty in order to prolong the lives of people who mostly will not live much longer in any case? What social precedents are we setting? What dangerous political forces are we unleashing?

So there you go, my answer is that I can’t put numbers on it because I believe it all has to be weighed up. But you seem much more morally confident in your views, as do all the others who wave stories of Covid death and tragedy at us, as though we were heartless ghouls who would happily switch off a life support machine for a Guinness. Hence I think it’s perfectly reasonable for those who pontificate about there being too many deaths to tell us what is not too many deaths and why.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 04:16PM

completedit wrote: »

Should be more precise with my use of words. I'm on my phone which I don't like. That sort of phrase doesn't lend support to my argument.

When I say alleged deadly, I refer to the models from February and March that predicted catastrophic death tolls. That was always the rationale behind the scale of the lockdowns. That's my reference point. As the preliminary death statistics show this was not the case.

Nope. The rationale behind the scale of the restrictions is not to overwhelm the hospitals.

You just got a glaring example of how fast and how dangerous this virus is at doing that.

It's like January didn't happen and everyone is back out now with their 'alleged pandemic'.

Hellrazer · 12-02-2021 04:17PM

josip wrote: »

Meanwhile in the real world

We on the other hand won't see any reduction in restrictions unless we can maintain a 7-day incidence of less than 15 per 100,000 for 4 weeks.
We are being treated like toddlers.

"We saw at Christmas that you can't be trusted. So you'll all have to prove that we (NPHET) can trust you again."

This is my biggest problem with the way we are being fed information. We are being treated like kids not the adults that voted them into power.

Email your local TD and tell them that - actually email them all.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 04:18PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But see, I do not pontificate on death statistics. All I try to do is argue that even the saving of lives and the prolongation of life must be balanced with other interests — in contrast to the prevailing belief in public policy over the past year that to advocate balance is advocate nothing more than indiscriminate senicide.

My stance on these forums has always been that my argument is ethically deficient and that I myself am by no means morally perfect. What grates me are those, and I often find you to be among them, who talk to other posters on here like you have some divine access to a higher morality — that somehow you are the champion of the sanctity and value of human life, while others are just selfish cretins who think pints are more important than people.

So to answer the question. I am not OK with any death, but I accept that there is a question of proportion between allowing people to enjoy life and focusing purely on the prolongation of life. That element of “proportion” is a tough and very grey issue to unpack — I am humble enough to admit that I can’t give perfect answers on it. But when I apply my own level of proportion to this Covid crisis, it is clear to me that the virus is mainly killing people who have been fortunate enough to live very long lives (probably on average the longest living Irish people yet I imagine), and so I ask myself the question of proportionality : are the tactics we are employing to tackle this elevation of deaths, as tragic as it is, disproportionately depriving others who have not yet been able to live long fulfilled lives? Are we saddling people with years of misery, stress and (for some) poverty in order to prolong the lives of people who mostly will not live much longer in any case? What social precedents are we setting? What dangerous political forces are we unleashing?

So there you go, my answer is that I can’t put numbers on it because I believe it all has to be weighed up. But you seem much more morally confident in your views, as do all the others who wave stories of Covid death and tragedy at us, as though we were heartless ghouls who would happily switch off a life support machine for a Guinness. Hence I think it’s perfectly reasonable for those who pontificate about there being too many deaths to tell us what is not too many deaths and why.

So you won't answer the question you yourself just asked?

Fair enough.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 04:19PM

paw patrol wrote: »

you're a funny sort , you clearly didn't believe him and asked for evidence.
Evidence produced and you fly off on a tangent of whataboutery .

you asked for evidence that forrest was closed.
was given
End of

The "tangent of whataboutery" as you describe it is actually very significant as to the reason why this wood has been closed to the public.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 04:24PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

U OK hon?

I`m fine which is more than you were when you were ranting about Michael D forcing you off the road.

FintanMcluskey · 12-02-2021 04:28PM

VonLuck wrote: »

You honestly believe 80% of people's lives have been ruined by Covid? Talk about hyperboles. Maybe you mean 80% of people's lives have been temporarily negatively affected by Covid.

If you're looking for a number, there isn't one. If you must have some form of metric, it's maintaining ICU capacity to a reasonable level. Once it goes beyond that stage it's not just the vulnerable that are at risk, it's everyone.

What number of deaths would you be comfortable with to relax restrictions?

We really need to start quantifying the Covid death rate in life years lost.

Those beyond life expectancy passing away would likely die without covid

It’s one metric recalibration that may allow adult conversations to take place

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 04:31PM

VonLuck wrote: »

You honestly believe 80% of people's lives have been ruined by Covid? Talk about hyperboles. Maybe you mean 80% of people's lives have been temporarily negatively affected by Covid.

If you're looking for a number, there isn't one. If you must have some form of metric, it's maintaining ICU capacity to a reasonable level. Once it goes beyond that stage it's not just the vulnerable that are at risk, it's everyone.

What number of deaths would you be comfortable with to relax restrictions?

This was a much more compelling argument a year ago — there has now been nigh a year to create nuanced approaches that prevent ICU from being overwhelmed on a sustained basis. Schools being open, construction sites being open, retail and restaurants — none of these precipitated mass spread of Covid or overwhelmed units — the effect of Christmas and people heading home to spend time in rooms with older relatives almost undoubtedly contributed to the spike (as well as seasonality). But we have not tested this out — we have instead rushed back to the entirely disproportionate and entirely nuance-free blanket lockdown approach

Just because we raise the spectre of overwhelmed ICU units does not trump all else. The short term panic in March might have rendered it more understandable, the passing of a year brings proportionality into play. After a year, much of which has involved fairly stringent restrictions, you have to start pushing the risk tolerance up. If the all-out cataclysm comes, if people can’t get into hospital and terror befalls the nation — then work the restrictions up. There is no evidence to suggest that the situation is beyond retrieval even if the cataclysm starts to manifest.

And by all means, point the finger at me at that time and call me the advocate of indirect murder. But believe me when I say — I will reserve the right to remind you, when the long term effects of Covid lockdowns manifest, that you deemed them a price worth paying — and that you too made a moral judgement in which you accepted that any death and misery to flow directly or indirectly from lockdowns was a price worth paying.

In the fullness of time, nobody will come out of this and not be forced to say that what they advocated cost lives.

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 04:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

So you won't answer the question you yourself just asked?

Fair enough.

I answered the question with a level of detail, honesty and acceptance of my own flaws that I doubt we will see from you anytime soon. I note that you still have not answered the question.

I said I am not Ok with any death, but that I apply my own sense of what is proportionate based on balancing the prolongation of life with other important interests.

I am not the one pontificating to others on how much death is too much — I just note with interest that those who are doing so seem very reluctant to say what level of death is just right.

growleaves · 12-02-2021 04:36PM

An acquaintance of mine who objects to meeting anyone indoors and wears his face mask indoors - and who convinced all the parents in his estate to cancel their plan to allow their children to meet outdoors for a few minutes on Halloween evening - is now against the lockdowns.

One by one people are changing their minds.

Many very strong supporters of lockdowns did not realise they were signing up for years of rolling lockdowns post-vaccination.

Also remember propaganda phrases like "circuit-breaker"? This present lockdown is due to last four months. Or seven to eight months with a three-week interval in the middle (which interval we won't get next year). So much for those 'short, sharp' holding actions.

Aph2016 · 12-02-2021 04:37PM

These lockdowns are not sustainable any longer. The shift in the publics mood is definitely changing. The government will either double down again, or they will start paying attention to this shift. It's time to start putting pressure on TDs and senators, I will certainly be distributing the excel list of TDs to as many people as I can and asking them to contact their local TD to express their frustration and anger.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 04:37PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I answered the question with a level of detail, honesty and acceptance of my own flaws that I doubt we will see from you anytime soon. I note that you still have not answered the question.

Boggles wrote: »

It's too hard to give an exact figure because you don't judge the damage a pandemic does or potentially does on just deaths.

If it was, a figure would come a lot easier.

5,000 would be mine.

.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 04:43PM

growleaves wrote: »

An acquaintance of mine who objects to meeting anyone indoors and wears his face mask indoors - and who convinced all the parents in his estate to cancel their plan to allow their children to meet outdoors for a few minutes on Halloween evening - is now against the lockdowns.

One by one people are changing their minds.

Many very strong supporters of lockdowns did not realise they were signing up for years or decades of rolling lockdowns post-vaccination.

Also remember propaganda phrases like "circuit-breaker"? This present lockdown is due to last four months. Or seven to eight months with a three-week interval in the middle (which interval we won't get next year). So much for those 'short, sharp' holding actions.

What else is your magical crystal ball showing you? Can I have a loan of it when you`re finished with it? It might show me the winning jackpot numbers for the next Lottto draw.

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 04:46PM

Boggles wrote: »

.

It's too hard to give an exact figure because you don't judge the damage a pandemic does or potentially does on just deaths.

If it was, a figure would come a lot easier.

5,000 would be mine.

Fair enough, so you wouldn’t believe that it would be worthwhile introducing further restrictions that might get that get that number even lower?

Dare I say that you are making a moral judgement, based on your view of proportionality, that 5,000 lives is a price worth paying to not restrict things any further?

growleaves · 12-02-2021 04:47PM

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

What else is your magical crystal ball showing you? Can I have a loan of it when you`re finished with it? It might show me the winning Lotto jackpot numbers for the next draw.

Yes, you can. As long as you promise to give it back uncracked. Be very careful with it. Almost all of my predictions have been correct. I was ridiculed off the main thread a few weeks ago for suggesting that restrictions could continue into 2022, something which was confirmed by Leo Varadkar just the other day.

facehugger99 · 12-02-2021 04:48PM

growleaves wrote: »

An acquaintance of mine who objects to meeting anyone indoors and wears his face mask indoors - and who convinced all the parents in his estate to cancel their plan to allow their children to meet outdoors for a few minutes on Halloween evening - is now against the lockdowns.

In a few years time when taxes are raised, services cut and the actual excess mortality rate from this social-media pandemic are apparent, he'll be telling everyone how he was never in favour of lockdown.

I'll expect we'll see a few lads on the Covid thread deleting their accounts and starting new ones to moan about the state of the country.

Crybabygeeks · 12-02-2021 04:53PM

Hellrazer wrote: »

This is my biggest problem with the way we are being fed information. We are being treated like kids not the adults that voted them into power.

Email your local TD and tell them that - actually email them all.

DONE! thanks for this list. 160 of them to BCC.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 04:53PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Fair enough, so you wouldn’t believe that it would be worthwhile introducing further restrictions that might get that get that number even lower?

Dare I say that you are making a moral judgement, based on your view of proportionality, that 5,000 lives is a price worth paying to not restrict things any further?

Nope. If the only negative aspects of the pandemic was death.

5,000 would be my number.

Looking at leaked correspondent from the Swedes, they thought 10,000 would be worth it.

So I kind of used their formula.

Now I have been above honest with you, you don't want to answer your question that is fair enough.

Personally I would never try bully a person into answering a question, I wouldn't answer myself. You understand now?

facehugger99 · 12-02-2021 04:57PM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. If the only negative aspects of the pandemic was death.

5,000 would be my number.

Looking at leaked correspondent from the Swedes, they thought 10,000 would be worth it.

So I kind of used their formula.

Now I have been above honest with you, you don't want to answer your question that is fair enough.

Personally I would never try bully a person into answering a question, I wouldn't answer myself. You understand now?

Your 'number' is bull**** of the highest order.

5,000 what? 90 years old's, 95 year old's?

Most of the people dying from Covid are beyond the age of life expectancy, not to mention the underlying conditions that many of them have that impact on quality of life.

Kunta Kinte · 12-02-2021 05:04PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

In a few years time when taxes are raised, services cut and the actual excess mortality rate from this social-media pandemic are apparent, he'll be telling everyone how he was never in favour of lockdown.

I'll expect we'll see a few lads on the Covid thread deleting their accounts and starting new ones to moan about the state of the country.

You seem to expect a lot of things to happen. None of them have any basis in reality. But sure don`t let that stop you from having another of your usual rants.

Boggles · 12-02-2021 05:04PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your 'number' is bull**** of the highest order.

5,000 what? 90 years old's, 95 year old's?

Most of the people dying from Covid are beyond the age of life expectancy, not to mention the underlying conditions that many of them have that impact on quality of life.

Why are you getting upset, Arthur asked what I think is a pertinent question, has no basis in reality, but since we are fantasying. I answered honestly.

Anyway to answer your question, Fintan informs me the median age is 83.

I don't think there is a government out there that didn't go down the zero covid route, that would note bite your hand off at that number minus all the other negative aspects of course.

ArthurDayne · 12-02-2021 05:08PM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. If the only negative aspects of the pandemic was death.

5,000 would be my number.

Looking at leaked correspondent from the Swedes, they thought 10,000 would be worth it.

So I kind of used their formula.

Now I have been above honest with you, you don't want to answer your question that is fair enough.

Personally I would never try bully a person into answering a question, I wouldn't answer myself. You understand now?

I did answer the question — but I see, even now, when you give an answer you can’t seem to handle what it is you are actually saying. Even if we are to assume that you didn’t just pluck what you thought was a nice small number out of the air — and take your answer seriously — then the logical conclusion is that you think 5,000 deaths is a price worth paying to not restrict the country further. If you did not believe this, you would call for heavier measures to try make that number smaller.

That is what you are saying Boggles, that is the unavoidable logical conclusion of the number you have chosen, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. It does not make you a bad person, and certainly I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a good person. So welcome to the “You Would Happily Kill Old People Instead of Accepting a Few More Restrictions Crew”. Do you think it’s unfair that I’m putting you in that crew? Good, because it is unfair. Those of us who have spent a year being unfairly categorised into that crew feel the same.

FintanMcluskey · 12-02-2021 05:10PM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. If the only negative aspects of the pandemic was death.

5,000 would be my number.

Looking at leaked correspondent from the Swedes, they thought 10,000 would be worth it.

But 5000 deaths in Ireland is similar to 10,000 in Sweden

They have 2 million vulnerable citizens

I always find those who argue most, have less consideration the effects population demographics have on a disease that is primarily lethal those over 65 .

FintanMcluskey · 12-02-2021 05:11PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your 'number' is bull**** of the highest order.

5,000 what? 90 years old's, 95 year old's?

Most of the people dying from Covid are beyond the age of life expectancy, not to mention the underlying conditions that many of them have that impact on quality of life.

Boggles must be really pissed off about the 300,000 citizens who died in Ireland over the last decade

We really are arguing about life’s only guarantee

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings