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

walus wrote: »

The NZ case only proves that this strategy works sometimes. It worked for them, but for most of the world it did not. It may have just so be that luck and external circumstances played a much more detrimental role in their success than the prime minister. The fact that this strategy worked is certainly not a proof that she is a great leader.

Edit: I don’t think she is in anyway superior leader to their counterparts across the globe. She was lucky to have favourable circumstances helping her achieve favourable outcome.

Nope, you said a leader who formulated and achieved something different would barely get the deserved recognition.

That ain't true.

Clearly.

JRant wrote: »

Less than 100 cases a day for 4 weeks before opening up. Okay, it seems a completely unreasonable standard to set but at least it's a target.

Best way to achieve this is for all the hypochondriacs out there to stop getting tested. Test and trace doesn't work here so there's little to no point in pretending it makes any difference. Unless someone is actually sick, in which case they'll need medical support anyway, it makes no sense to keep testing otherwise healthy people. Especially when this metric is being used to strip our rights away. If you have symptoms, stay home until they pass. That's all people have to do and take away these "metrics" that can be twisted and used against the people of the country.

I'm still flabbergasted at the sheer volume of people still looking to get a test done and GP's have an awful lot to answer for here. They replaced sending people to A&E with sending them for a COVID test.

Yes know someone who went for a test last week who it was pretty obvious they didn’t have it, it was negative. I remember at the start of this last March, I was ringing the doctor about my anxiety and have tightness in my chest, she then started going down the Covid route, I had to talk her down. I had no other symptoms and knew for a fact I did not have Covid but if she had her way would have sent me for a test. And guess what after I got the letter to say I could work from home, the tightness in the chest disappeared.

CruelSummer wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/news/taoiseach-now-unlikely-to-travel-to-washington-as-white-house-examines-virtual-st-patricks-day-meeting-40085139.html

Now we're forgoing one of the best economic and political opportunities Ireland gets on an annual basis. Thanks to the Left (Sinn Féin supporters) and others campaign for Martin not to 'travel' - the new dirty word.

The government can't be urging people not to travel and then do so themselves.

CruelSummer wrote: »

Sure, do you think businesses and employees will also understand if they lose their jobs and investment goes elsewhere instead of Ireland?

Because the Taoiseach didn't go to meet the president face to face? I think you're putting too much significance upon a jolly to the US.

Silentcorner wrote: »

We have never seen anything like this before so nobody has any idea what could happen next...did anyone seriously think we would be in strict lockdown for a year this time last year as we watched the news, did any of us think this virus would prove to be a lot more deadly...yet here we are!

No. I didn't think we'd be in strict lockdown for a year this time last year. Thankfully I was right.

pm1977x wrote: »

What exactly is the endgame for them in this dastardly plan? What's in it for them to ''burn the economy to the ground''? Please enlighten us.

It's very easy to enlighten you.

1. Governments are temporary so they always focus on the immediate and on the short term and they will always take the easiest option available to them. In this case the short term focus, in Ireland an obsession, is Covid and not having hospitals overrun. Easiest way to do that is to take the easy loans available right now and blanket shut down the entire country. Which brings me to:

2. Governments, politicians, senior civil servants, including those in NPHET, don't care about long term because they will be personally inoculated against real financial pain as they'll have huge pensions and are too thick skinned to give a damn that they may well in time be demonised by the media when it suits the media, a la Brian Cowen for example. The cushion of permanent wealth and ease helps fortify that thick skin even more. And finally:

3. Governments, politicians and senior civil servants are me fein careerists who don't give one tuppany damn about the welfare of the people they serve. Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe the odd one does but the majority don't and anyway the whole system is too rotten for a few well meaners to make any difference.

How do some of you not get that? Or is it in your interests to be a Govt apologist?

I wonder has anyone ever surveyed the elderly and vulnerable and asked them if they even want their children and grand children to be locked up to supposedly protect them?
I know my grandparents would have been against the idea.

Boggles wrote: »

She did get nominated though, missing out to the UN Food programme.

So I guess not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but second.

A wrong example for what you tried to prove to me I was wrong about. Once again she did not come up with an alternative approach to dealing with the pandemic. Just like other governments she subscribed to the lockdown-until-vaccine franchise as have so many others and it worked for NZ. That is all.

walus wrote: »

A wrong example for what you tried to prove to me I was wrong about. Once again she did not come up with an alternative approach to dealing with the pandemic. Just like other governments she subscribed to the lockdown-until-vaccine franchise as have so many others and it worked for NZ. That is all.

Nope, again you claimed no leader would be given the recognition they deserved.

You then hilariously went on to say she didn't win a Nobel Prize, without knowing obviously she had been nominated for one.

It's a near perfect example.

She is and will be known as the leader who filled stadiums during a pandemic.

It's just a fact, no need to be scared of it.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What about the young vulnerable and immuno compromised children ? Those post transplants and with serious congenital heart defects . Has anyone asked them the same question ?

Vulnerable people have and will always exist, society does not need to be shut down completely in order to protect them.

Boggles wrote: »

Nope, again you claimed no leader would be given the recognition they deserved.

You then hilariously went on to say she didn't win a Nobel Prize, without knowing obviously she had been nominated for one.

It's a near perfect example.

She is and will be known as the leader who filled stadiums during a pandemic.

It's just a fact, no need to be scared of it.

Sorry, but it is you who is getting the facts wrong. in my post today at 12:30 pm I said that those leaders who go against the herd risk more than there is to gain. Because it normally takes a long time for them to be proven right, and hardly ever receive more than a pat at the back for doing their job. Most time they get hard time from the opposition and others. Sweden is a great example as you should know yourself as you blasted them repeatedly here.

It is you who claimed that NZ primary is a living proof that what I said is totally wrong. A simple fact is that she is not such thing as she has done nothing contrarian, all she has done is following the herd, which on rare case such as this proved to work for her. She is not an example of a leader who did the right thing by going against the herd. She in fact is the example of the only leader from that herd that was lucky enough to be blessed with a favourable outcome.

Just to add to that. If we had each government using their own brain powers independently from each other, by this time we would have a number of working strategies. That is how innovation works. It does not work by following the herd and we have no proven strategies that work.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

“You won’t believe this darling but some crowd from a thread on boards sent me over 2000 emails today. Fcuking peasants”

This thread might have encouraged tens of people to send emails. Not hundreds...and certainly not thousands.

walus wrote: »

Sorry, but it is you who is getting the facts wrong. in my post today at 12:30 pm I said that those leaders who go against the herd risk more than there is to gain.

Nope, you said

walus wrote: »

This whole failure of the strategy of dealing with cv-19 stems from the psychology of misjudgement. It is just so much safer to be wrong in the group than to be wrong on their own. Taking a different approach means enduring the stress and pressure until proven to be right and that can take a long time before that happens. If they are right they get a pat on the back (small gain)

I brought up the leader of NZ who was nominated for a Nobel Prize because of her handling of the pandemic.

We will leave there so. Because it's getting awkward.

walus wrote: »

I'm talking there about taking a different approach to the one favoured by the herd. How did the NZ pm take a different approach?

I'll just leave this here.

Boggles wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

Same old, same old...