Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings

Pdoghue · 05-03-2021 11:35AM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It’s not a mad tangent, the entire past year we have been wrestling with the concept of weighing up life. When it comes to Covid, there will come a day when we as a society will have to come to a point where we determine that a certain level of Covid deaths is at a number we can ‘tolerate’. In other words, the moment will come when a certain number of lives is deemed to not be at the requisite numerical value to prevent life from continuing on as normal. So far from being a mad tangent, it’s part of a theme that is likely to become apparent once many of the vulnerable are vaccinated.

This is a very interesting point. I agree.

The lockdown restriction are to do with hospital capacity, not with doing everything possible to save every single person, young or old.

Maybe we already have factored that in. That is, our current restrictions are in direct proportion to our current hospital capacity. I often wonder if we had 10 times the hospital/ICU capacity we have, whether our restrictions would be reduced in proportion and whether our tolerance for a certain level of casualties would increase.

SnuggyBear · 05-03-2021 11:35AM

Boggles wrote: »

Lord Eugenics is though. And he has history for it.

His musings are not based around who to save in a medical situation.

He is not a fan of masks, vaccines and he hates restrictions.

Open up and cull the weak is how he would deal with the pandemic because as he has stated their lives are of less value.

Personally I think that is abhorrent.

Bollocks, he supports vaccines and vaccine passports.

Boggles · 05-03-2021 11:35AM

Boggles wrote: »

False again.

As I stated, they sign a Code of Ethics which abides by the principle of the Hippocratic Oath. They are one and the same; only one is a modern version of the other.

Nope

Deleted User wrote: »

and it is also consistent with the Hippocratic Oath that clinicians are sworn to uphold.

05-03-2021 11:36AM

Boggles wrote: »

No ones life is of less value than anyone elses, whatever their age or ailment. This is human rights 101.

Do you think if someone with cancer is murdered, the murderer should get a lesser sentence?

Can you answer my question:

Deleted User wrote: »

To take an extreme hypothetical example, if there was a choice between choosing to save a perfectly healthy 1-day old baby or a 99-year old who had a high likelihood of death within 28-days, I think we both know who Boggles would save.

To dodge this question, Boggles would have to say that, "I may toss a coin and base my decision on that outcome, as both are equal choices".

But if Boggles has a means other than random to choose who to save, I'd like to know the basis of that decision.

Sobit1964 · 05-03-2021 11:40AM

Boggles wrote: »

No ones life is of less value than anyone elses, whatever their age or ailment. This is human rights 101.

Do you think if someone with cancer is murdered, the murderer should get a lesser sentence?

Way to miss the point intentionally in an effort to derail into inane midwittery. :rolleyes:

Back on topic - with the numbers dropping faster than expected, and a potential bump in vaccine deployment - might we see a relaxation of restrictions sooner than expected?

https://corporate.nordea.com/article/63918/global-the-vaccine-race-this-is-how-early-we-will-be-without-most-restrictions

Interesting report suggesting around 35% vaccinated leads to a breakthrough in case reductions.

Boggles · 05-03-2021 11:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you answer my question:

The comments were made in context of restrictions not medical need in triage.

No one has the right to say one life has less value over another.

But again, let me ask you a question.

If someone in their 20s is murdered and someone in their 70s is murdered.

Do you think there should be different sentences handed down to each murderer?

SnuggyBear · 05-03-2021 11:43AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you answer my question:

He won't answer it. His ai doesn't allow it.

05-03-2021 11:46AM

Boggles wrote: »

The comments were made in context of restrictions not medical need in triage.

No one has the right to say one life has less value over another.

But again, let me ask you a question.

If someone in their 20s is murdered and someone in their 70s is murdered.

Do you think there should be different sentences handed down to each murderer?

I am more than happy to address your question - on condition that you first answer mine, irrespective of how you've decided to categorize it.

05-03-2021 11:47AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

If The Journal closed their comments section they're readership would fall through the floor...their comment section is keeping them alive...now what does that say about them?

LOL, was true when I did look at the Journal some years back.

I'm hardly the only person to stop reading that garbage when they removed the thumb down on their comments a few years ago.

Boggles · 05-03-2021 11:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am more than happy to address your question - on condition that you first answer mine, irrespective of how you've decided to categorize it.

I all ready answered your question, in the context of triage medical doctors always have to make tough decisions, who gets the organ transplant etc. But that was not what was being debated

The context of the debate were restrictions not triage. He has decided upon himself to appropriate value on peoples lives in that context. He told a 39 year old lady her life was of less value.

Now if you could answer my question I actually asked before yours I'd appreciate it.

Analogs daughter · 05-03-2021 11:54AM

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't.

Doctors in this country belly laugh whenever someone "points out" that they have sworn to the Hippocratic Oath.

They don't.

All medical students state the Hippocratic oath at their graduation in Ireland you absolute idiot.

05-03-2021 11:58AM

Boggles wrote: »

The context of the debate were restrictions not triage. He has decided upon himself to appropriate value on peoples lives in that context. He told a 39 year old lady her life was of less value.

Explaining on The Big Questions he did not believe “all lives are of equal value”, the former justice said his children’s and grandchildren’s lives were “worth more because they’ve got a lot more of it ahead”.

This isn't something any grandparent I know would disagree with.

Lord Sumption has since said the comments were “taken out of context”, telling the Daily Mail : “I object extremely strongly to any suggestion that I was inferring that Miss James's life was less valuable because she had cancer.

“I thought she was responding to my earlier comments about older people being protected by a total lockdown which is causing immense harm to the young who are unaffected”.

Appearing to blame the misunderstanding on the video technology the pair spoke over, he said: “If [Ms James] has misinterpreted that then I can only apologise to her as it was not my intention to suggest she was less valuable. Sometimes on videolinks it can be difficult to hear what the other person is saying.”

Come on Bog, admit it. You googled "Lord Sumption" and linked to the first inflammatory headline you could find without reading the article.

Boggles · 05-03-2021 12:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on Bog, admit it. You googled "Lord Sumption" and linked to the first inflammatory headline you could find without reading the article.

Watch the video.

She clearly tells him she has cancer, he smirks at her and tells her, her life is of less value.

Not all heroes wear capes, some used wear wigs.

OwenM · 05-03-2021 12:10PM

Boggles wrote: »

No ones life is of less value than anyone elses, whatever their age or ailment. This is human rights 101.

Do you think if someone with cancer is murdered, the murderer should get a lesser sentence?

More simple deflection to avoid answering the question posed, it's really tiring now.

Kivaro · 05-03-2021 12:16PM

Boggles wrote: »

He smirked at a lady with cancer and told her, her life was of less value in the context of a debate around restrictions.

That is cretinous and insidious.

Zero to do with triage in a medical emergency.

Smirked?
That is your interpretation because that is the way you want to see it in your mind, but rational people would not see it that way.

05-03-2021 12:23PM

Boggles wrote: »

Watch the video.

She clearly tells him she has cancer, he smirks at her and tells her, her life is of less value.

Not all heroes wear capes, some used wear wigs.

It's okay to read the words as well as looking at the pictures.

I don't see a smirk. That's just how his face looks. Are you talking about his face?

Boggles · 05-03-2021 12:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see a smirk. That's just how his face looks.

So he is the Joker?

gmisk · 05-03-2021 12:34PM

Analogs daughter wrote: »

All medical students state the Hippocratic oath at their graduation in Ireland you absolute idiot.

Is that still the case? Anything I have found says they don't state it anymore, at least not in it's original form.

Boggles · 05-03-2021 12:37PM

gmisk wrote: »

Is that still the case? Anything I have found says they don't state it anymore, at least not in it's original form.

No it isn't, but apparently you are an "absolute idiot" if you don't believe they do.

Analogs daughter · 05-03-2021 12:45PM

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't, but apparently you are an "absolute idiot" if you don't believe they do.

They did 3 years ago when I graduated. If they still don't do it today it's a modified version.

Graham · 05-03-2021 12:52PM

normanoffside wrote: »

How are you confused. It didn’t work because we’ve been in lockdown for 6 months since then. Are you hoping for second time lucky?

In reality it did work and we were able to relax restrictions for much longer than otherwise would have been the case.

Problems started when we reacted too slowly to increasing case numbers then we threw in a pre-christmas jolly.

Baggly · 05-03-2021 01:01PM

Boggles wrote: »

So he is the Joker?

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't, but apparently you are an "absolute idiot" if you don't believe they do.

Mod

Rein it in or stop posting. This is not constructive or condusive to the discussion.

ypres5 · 05-03-2021 01:10PM

Graham wrote: »

In reality it did work and we were able to relax restrictions for much longer than otherwise would have been the case.

Problems started when we reacted too slowly to increasing case numbers then we threw in a pre-christmas jolly.

the government flying people in from the uk probably didn't help either but you never hear the press mention that

growleaves · 05-03-2021 01:11PM

OwenM wrote: »

More simple deflection to avoid answering the question posed, it's really tiring now.

Its sophistry rather than deflection, as he is drawing comparisons from two scenarios which are not comparable.

I said it yesterday that the whole thread has become the Boggles Hour, where he pulls out a glass bead jar of rhetorical tricks and deploys them one after another in sequence.

Anti-restrictions posters must play whack-a-mole, recognising and then squashing many different pieces of sophistry.

That is not a discussion, its a kind of gibberish racking up of debating points.

Baggly · 05-03-2021 01:14PM

growleaves wrote: »

Its sophistry rather than deflection, as he is drawing comparisons from two scenarios which are not comparable.

I said it yesterday that the whole thread has become the Boggles Hour, where he pulls out a glass bead jar of rhetorical tricks and deploys them one after another in sequence.

Anti-restrictions posters must play whack-a-mole, recognising and then squashing many different pieces of sophistry.

That is not a discussion, its a kind of gibberish racking up of debating points.

Mod

Discuss posts in this thread please. Have no time or interest for anyones thoughts on other posters.

timmyntc · 05-03-2021 01:17PM

Graham wrote: »

In reality it did work and we were able to relax restrictions for much longer than otherwise would have been the case.

Problems started when we reacted too slowly to increasing case numbers then we threw in a pre-christmas jolly.

Then why did we have the shortest period of no restrictions last year when all of continental europe had a fairly normal summer? Sounds to me like it didnt work

facehugger99 · 05-03-2021 01:47PM

The Boggles Brain.

Providing a safe-space for opinions to self-identify as facts, since 1982.

Corby Trouser Press · 05-03-2021 02:02PM

https://www.independent.ie/news/state-faces-legal-challenge-to-discriminatory-covid-19-construction-restrictions-40162601.html

State faces legal challenge to ‘discriminatory’ Covid-19 construction restrictions

The State is facing a High Court challenge to Covid-19 restrictions which have halted around 60pc of construction work across the country.

The case is being taken by Blue Whisp Ltd, a company controlled by businessmen Paddy McKillen Jr and Matt Ryan which had been building an apartment block at the site of the old Kiely’s Pub in Mount Merrion, Dublin.

It is the second legal challenge launched by the two businessmen over Covid restrictions.

Their Press Up group, which has substantial interests in leisure and hospitality, also sued the State over restrictions closing pubs and restaurants last year.

The latest case involves claims that while certain types of construction work is exempt from restrictions, other types, such as the construction of private housing, are being unfairly discriminated against.

The application for a judicial review was moved this morning by Rossa Fanning SC, instructed by Leman Solicitors, for Blue Whisp Ltd.

“We wish to bring an urgent challenge to the regulations on the basis they are irrational, disproportionate and discriminatory,” Mr Fanning told Mr Justice Charles Meenan.

He said it was an urgent and significant case. Regulations relating to what construction work can and cannot continue are due to be extended by the Government today.

“The significance of the case is that it would affect 60pc of the construction industry which is presently at a standstill. And there are very significant weekly costs being incurred by my client and clearly by other parties that would be interested in these proceedings,” said Mr Fanning.
The proceedings are against the Health Minister.

Mr Fanning said there had already been correspondence between his side and the minister in which minister rejected the claims being made.

The court heard that certain types of construction were exempt from restrictions, including work on hospitals, schools and critical transport infrastructure, but other types, including the construction work being undertaken at the Mount Merrion site, were not.

Mr Fanning said that in applying to strike down the regulations, his clients did not overlook the significant public health challenge posed by the pandemic.

“We accept the Government has had an unenviable task in seeking to strike a balance between protecting public health and permitting certain important economic activity,” he said.

“But we say this, and it is an important point. The criteria have to be based on public health.”

Mr Fanning said the minister, for example, can decide golf isn’t permitted. But it wouldn’t be permissible for the minister to say you can have golf on public courses but not on private courses or that men could play golf but not women.

“That would be a distinction in the regulations with no apparent connection to public health,” he said.

Mr Fanning said “public/private discrimination” was the “Achilles heel” of the construction regulations currently in place.

“There is a hotchpotch of different categories of construction, some of which are exempted and some of which are not. The exemption is determined by the purpose of the construction project, not by the public health effect,” he said.

Mr Fanning said construction on computer factories that manufacture microchips was exempt, as was building a data centre, or public housing construction that is about to conclude.

“But if I am engaged in the construction of private housing, that is excluded. We say that is a discriminatory criteria that is not relevant to public health,” he said.

Mr Justice Meenan ordered that the application be made on notice to the minister and adjourned proceedings for a week.

About time.

Not that they will get anywhere with it in the current climate but worth a go at this stage.

timmyntc · 05-03-2021 02:14PM

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/news/state-faces-legal-challenge-to-discriminatory-covid-19-construction-restrictions-40162601.html

State faces legal challenge to ‘discriminatory’ Covid-19 construction restrictions

...

About time.

Not that they will get anywhere with it in the current climate but worth a go at this stage.

They make a good point - if its for public health, then why the distinction between public & private sites. Its not like public sites are inherently safer.

And if the argument is public sites are "essential" well so are private sites. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, private sites are more essential than ever.

bb1234567 · 05-03-2021 02:33PM

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1367829578144702465/photo/1

Vaccine having a pretty stunning impact on case positivity in the UK. One of the few European countries not facing into a third or fourth wave now

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX Read OP For Mod Warnings