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

Deleted User wrote: »

And amazingly he's still called an expert. It would be a bit like a mechanic causing car after car to fall apart instead of fixing it.

What is amazing is he is now a household name and has been for some time...he is an absolute charlatan...a dangerous one at that!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And amazingly he's still called an expert. It would be a bit like a mechanic causing car after car to fall apart instead of fixing it.

He never gets challenged on any of his bull****.

Certainly not on RTE anyway, we have leaked email proof that RTE and ISAG are covertly working together.

Amazing to see this kind of sickening gaslighting of the public unfolding before our very eyes.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is a blunt instrument however

Sorry but it is a Tuesday night, I can't play the restrictions drinking game.

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously a typo. Covid will behave like a seasonal virus once enough have had exposure to it or a vaccine. Not before then however to any large extent

So how are you explaining our two seasonal surges?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Depersonalisation and remote service provision is likely to be a lasting legacy of the pandemic. I can agree that it is not my preference but it is an acceleration of a trend, not something that has been solely caused by Covid 19.

Yes, governments will invest more heavily in public health and virology and we will be on a higher alert for the coming decades. Will there be negatives to this? Absolutely. But there will be positives in medical research and science and hopefully a greater focus on the underlying social factors and conditions beyond the west that facilitate the emergence of novel viruses.

Our government is on notice around fairness in the economy. Feb 2020 was their last warning around the real electoral consequences of allowing continued marginalisation and alienation for an ever larger chunk of the working populace. Covid increases the pressure on FFG, but the basic objective will be the same. By the middle of 2024 they will need to have demonstrated real substantive progress on housing affordability and availability. If they fail in this endeavour, a SF government will sweep to power with a mandate for the most fundamental changes to property, wealth and social provision in the history of the state. I don't fear this, I welcome the possibility of much needed change.

The strong political motivations in play for FFG make me confident that every effort will be made to generate as strong an economic recovery as possible. Austerity is not on the cards unless there is no other option.

At the broadest level, your point is largely a philosophical one: 'how should people be forced to live their lives and earn their living?' Automation and digitisation has been bubbling away under the surface ready to erupt and upend society as we know it. A new deal has been required for some time. Yes, Covid has accelerated this and wrecked immediate havoc on people that may otherwise have avoided it for another decade or so. But make no mistake, this reckoning had been coming. What has been required for some time is a frank conversation on how "progress" creates winners and losers and what there is to be done about it. If the post covid landscape forces society to properly discuss and address these points I welcome it.

A very good post — though my response would be that all those things are broad and long term — and there is an element here where your argument seems to be elevated to a level above the tangible human experience. What I mean by that is, yes, socioeconomic destruction leads ultimately to society moving towards fundamental changes which can be beneficial — but while that economic theory plays out there are real people and real communities suffering who bear the cost of that suffering for many years and perhaps a lifetime. Socioeconomic problems cannot simply be confined to a zero-sum game where we say “business die and others take their place” — they come with all manner of adverse consequences on individual peoples’ lives and the communities they inhabit that do not necessarily abate when the good times roll back around.

My interpretation of your argument is that socioeconomic disaster is effectively cancelled out by recovery — that the pain precipitates progress. I’m getting the impression that you veer that way, and forgive me if I’m taking liberties, because it provides a better basis on which to maintain that the lockdown strategy was justified. If you remove the tangible human experience of socioeconomic depression from the equation, then socioeconomic problems are little more than abstract themes — and thus it becomes much easier to defend lockdown — because ultimately it is very difficult to pose the abstract against the very real loss of life. But it is an unfair way to pose the matter — because socioeconomic depression also has a humanitarian cost — and this is not abstract or philosophical. It causes misery, it affects the quality of life of many, it breaks households and families, it pushes many towards crime, it causes conflict — and indeed it can ultimately lead to death both directly and indirectly.

I‘ve always been quick to confess that my views on lockdown give rise to difficult moral calls, and I have to accept that the implementation of my views would cause death. Having said that, if people think lockdown was a price worth paying to save lives, I think they must be realistic enough to accept that it will come at a humanitarian cost (even if they think that cost does not outweigh things) and brave enough to admit that the implementation of their view will likewise cause death in different ways — instead of just saying that economies will recover and therefore it’s all OK. To me, the argument of “bad things inevitably happen anyway and lead to good things” is not satisfactory and could almost be applied to any disaster humanity has encountered — and I am not sure you would accept it if I used the same premise to defend my own views.

Neagra wrote: »

the economic fallout has potential to linger for years.
the financial support for employees and employers is only papering over the cracks and as we start to reopen the full extent of the economic damage to the world economy will become clearer.
my fears are governments and central banks have taken on too much debt to help businesses survive and it will take many years and alot of pain to pay this debt off
i believe what is coming is worse then 2008 as 2008 only affected a few countries , this is different.
i fully expect many companies to lay off employees when the wage subsidies end and to introduce wage cuts. also many companies will fold.
soon we will ask was the lockdown worth it and the answer will be no.
and the social decay that started in 2008 will continue to spread deeper across our country.
the reality is our political class are spineless cowards intent on self preservation and they always make the wrong decisions in time of crisis.

I honestly don't understand how (and believe it to be one of the most obvious signs that the entire monetary system is insane and unfit for purpose) how the entire world can to into recession at the same time. If pretty much every country has had to shut down its economy during this, and therefore fund social welfare and business reports, and if all money is essentially created by lending it into existence, is the obvious solution not for countries to agree to a mutual "COVID debt cancellation program" of sorts, in which once the pandemic ends we simply reset national debts etc to whatever they were before this started?

Normally this doesn't work because it's assumed that countries which fared better during a crisis won't want to give up the advantages they've made over those who didn't. With COVID though, all but a tiny, select few countries haven't experienced a gigantic spiralling in the national debt as a result. Surely if everyone is indebted then essentially nobody is? If I owe you €50 and you owe me €50 isn't it easier if we just agree to keep our respective €50s rather than needlessly swapping them?

This is essentially what the United States government has been doing for years. AFAIK the only reason we can't practise monetary financing at the ECB level without keeping the hangover debt for symbolic reasons is because of Germany's experience with Weimar Germany and the lingering psychological scars from that, but they're totally incomparable situations. Weimar Germany was an international pariah in the wake of WWI and was under a series of intentionally punitive measures designed to intentionally f*ck with their economy as a sort of revenge. No such situation exists around COVID, countries should work together to agree a debt reset once this ends, or at least to delay repayments for long enough that inflation takes care of them on its own.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All of this being said, that is 100% an irresponsible abdication of responsibility by the media. Their job was never to publish stories which don't earn them any criticism from the public or the government, it was never to pick a right and wrong "side" in an issue and report only the voices from one of those two sides - the media is supposed to provide a balanced viewpoint no matter what the issue under discussion, and in this particular case, on this particular issue, they have fundamentally and entirely chosen to sh!t all over that principle of journalistic integrity.

I'm way behind with this thread and playing catch up. Good post ^^^
I've quoted the last paragraph as that's the part I want to address. I have absolutely no doubt that once the medical 'emergency' is over and done with, then, and only then, will the other side of the story be told in the media. It'll be full of job losses and evictions and companies going to the wall. The reason being - misery sells.

normanoffside wrote: »

There were definitely far right elements that were present and probably provoked or caused that one Violent incident. As I said on Saturday the National party were handing out leaflets which I refused.

However I have seen it widely said that the NP organised the protests which is blatantly untrue and the vast majority of those who attended have no interest in them or their policies.

Incidentally Prime time tonight revised the number of attendees upwards to 2,000 so you can bet it was at least twice that.

NP hand out leaflets at everything , that doesn't mean anything.
Although the media like to twist it that the NP are some all seeing - all doing illuminati controlling the political discourse in Ireland cos it deflects from the abject failings of people in power or with access to power.

I'd love to see what was inside the heads of people who bleat on about far right who do they think is out there - Some new century blend of IRA & Sturmabteilung

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Yep, the signs are becoming harder to ignore...



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/pandemic-widens-gap-in-public-finances-as-crisis-enters-second-year-1.4499569


Here's what will end this ridiculous lockdown approach...

- the money runs out
- the general public starts pushing back
- the politicians start fearing for their chances next election
- Other European countries (and especially the UK as our closest neighbour and the one we still have the most ties to historically) start to reopen and the pressure to do likewise here adds to the above

The first 3 are currently happening. The 4th won't be long, and then the Irish position will be untenable regardless of cases and media hysteria.

I don’t share your optimism unfortunately. The money will keep coming. The second point you make is what everything hinges upon.

A critical mass of general public has proved themselves to be incapable of critical thinking or even an ability to drill into the numbers. They are happy to be spoon fed the agenda driven talking points of the day without question.

Variants are resistant to vaccines, ALL protestors are right wing racists, pubs will drive Covid numbers through the roof etc.

Then we have the so called left wing parties who are not only supporting the FF/FG stance but actively looking for more autocratic, endless restrictions.

I really don’t see where a meaningful pushback from the public is going to come from.