Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

When will it all end?

Options
1…312313315317318

Comments

  • Options
    #9422
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    What has your post got to do with........

    Call it balancing out your half-reality check.


  • Options
    #9423
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Could you explain that idea?

    Which bits are government failings and in what way are they blaming people for their failings?

    It appears as if you're trying to imply that I said government are blaming people. I didn't.


  • Options
    #9424
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    Call it balancing out your half-reality check.

    Not my reality check at all. Contact the CB if you don't like what they said. Must be uncomfortable to champion restrictions when the reality of what collateral damage it does is highlighted for you. As I said though contact the CB I'm sure they will amend their findings for you.


  • Options
    #9425
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Graham wrote: »
    indeed

    That's fantastic for the people who have been able to save. Not so much for the 100k who will be out of work though.


  • Options
    #9426
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Not my reality check at all. Contact the CB if you don't like what they said

    I'm not disputing the findings, rather your determined cherry-picking of the negative parts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9427
    AdamD
    Registered Users Posts: 12,487 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Graham wrote: »
    indeed

    Ultimately its been 2 different pandemics financially. One group have record level of savings, another hasn't been able to work at all and a certain % of those will never get their job back.


  • Options
    #9428
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    That's fantastic for the people who have been able to save. Not so much for the 100k who will be out of work though.

    Agreed.

    One would hope a large proportion of the 100k will benefit from the additional jobs created with the extra €5billion in consumer spending.


  • Options
    #9429
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Graham wrote: »
    Agreed.

    One would hope a large proportion of the 100k will benefit from the additional jobs created with the extra €5billion in consumer spending.

    Well that's something we can agree on anyway!


  • Options
    #9430
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,096 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It appears as if you're trying to imply that I said government are blaming people. I didn't.

    Ok. Could you explain what you did mean?


  • Options
    #9431
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the findings, rather your determined cherry-picking of the negative parts.

    Cherry picking? The tweet was posted today. 100,000 permanent job losses your response to post about savings. Accusing me of a half reality check . Its ok though I forgot we are all in this together, hold firm, stay safe etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9432
    LameBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭LameBeaver


    Graham wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the findings, rather your determined cherry-picking of the negative parts.

    Not the 1st time he has done this in various threads either.


  • Options
    #9433
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Ok. Could you explain what you did mean?

    Media and social media are pointing the finger at people for breaking the restrictions instead of at government for imposing restrictions for too long. It was acknowledged last March/April that harsh restrictions should be temporary (no more than a few weeks). That seems to have been forgotten this year. Do people not remember how long a year felt when they were in their late teens/early 20s? Is it any wonder a lot of people in that age group have had enough?


  • Options
    #9434
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,883 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Perhaps the government should have factored in compliance of young people when implementing restrictions then. I'm fed up seeing people be blamed for government failings. We've been under harsh restrictions for a good part of the last year. That feels like a lifetime when you're in your teens/early 20s.

    Let me see if I get this straight. The Government should have factored in young people not complying to guidelines, but its also in no way the young people's fault for the continuation of the lockdown strategy.

    So it's the Government's fault that they didn't allow for young people being selfish pricks, rather then the young people's fault for being selfish pricks?

    Also it's not just young people in their 20's*. There are plenty of 30 and 40 something year olds out there breaking the exact same regulations.


  • Options
    #9435
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Cherry picking? The tweet was posted today.

    The tweet was a link to a full article with all sorts of facts/figures/opinions.

    I assumed you'd read beyond the initial 150 odd character lead to get the full story. My mistake


  • Options
    #9436
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Media and social media are pointing the finger at people for breaking the restrictions instead of at government for imposing restrictions for too long. It was acknowledged last March/April that harsh restrictions should be temporary (no more than a few weeks). That seems to have been forgotten this year. Do people not remember how long a year felt when they were in their late teens/early 20s? Is it any wonder a lot of people in that age group have had enough?

    I remember Fergal Bowers noting how it was a coincidence that restrictions last year were going to start to lift in May the same time the HSE was instigating contact tracing.


  • Options
    #9437
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Quazzie wrote: »
    Let me see if I get this straight. The Government should have factored in young people not complying to guidelines, but its also in no way the young people's fault for the continuation of the lockdown strategy.

    So it's the Government's fault that they didn't allow for young people being selfish pricks, rather then the young people's fault for being selfish pricks?

    Also it's not just young people in their 20's*. There are plenty of 30 and 40 something year olds out there breaking the exact same regulations.

    If you want to get what I'm saying straight, it would be helpful if you didn't respond to points you made up rather than the ones I made.


  • Options
    #9438
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    The tweet was a link to a full article with all sorts of facts/figures/opinions.

    I assumed you'd read beyond the initial 150 odd character lead to get the full story. My mistake

    You seem to want to get personal, why? Surely as a Mod you know play the ball not the man. The 100,000 job losses is it correct to attribute the claim to a tweet from the central bank. A simple yes or no will suffice.


  • Options
    #9439
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    You seem to want to get personal, why? Surely as a Mod you know play the ball not the man. The 100,000 job losses is it correct to attribute the claim to a tweet from the central bank. A simple yes or no will suffice.

    It's not a tweet from the central bank.

    It's a link to a full article about advice given from the CB. Have you read it yet?


  • Options
    #9440
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    You seem to want to get personal, why? Surely as a Mod you know play the ball not the man. The 100,000 job losses is it correct to attribute the claim to a tweet from the central bank. A simple yes or no will suffice.

    Assuming someone has read an article they've posted a link to (and commented on) is getting personal?


  • Options
    #9441
    LameBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭LameBeaver


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Cherry picking? The tweet was posted today. 100,000 permanent job losses your response to post about savings. Accusing me of a half reality check . Its ok though I forgot we are all in this together, hold firm, stay safe etc etc.

    The majority of which were of low value to the economy anyway or which would have been lost in the near future even without any Covid restrictions .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9442
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    The majority of which were of low value to the economy anyway.

    It may make no difference but I have reported your post for trolling. Disgusting that you can dismiss the livihoods of 100,000 people just to provoke a reaction.


  • Options
    #9443
    AdamD
    Registered Users Posts: 12,487 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Quazzie wrote: »
    Let me see if I get this straight. The Government should have factored in young people not complying to guidelines, but its also in no way the young people's fault for the continuation of the lockdown strategy.

    So it's the Government's fault that they didn't allow for young people being selfish pricks, rather then the young people's fault for being selfish pricks?

    Also it's not just young people in their 20's*. There are plenty of 30 and 40 something year olds out there breaking the exact same regulations.
    Yes. The government absolutely should factor in that young people aren't going to sit at home for 12 months due to a virus with statistically very little chance of harming them. You can call it selfish all you want, they could argue its selfish for you to expect them to indefinitely put their lives on hold for your benefit.


    One group does not have a monopoly over what's considered to be selfish or not.


  • Options
    #9444
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    Assuming someone has read an article they've posted a link to (and commented on) is getting personal?

    I posted a link that a 100,000 jobs will be lost as per a finding from the CB. You clearly don't like 'negatives' like that being posted. Feel free to PM what you would find acceptable form the CB's findings I know savings is one any others?


  • Options
    #9445
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I posted a link that a 100,000 jobs will be lost as per a finding from the CB. You clearly don't like 'negatives' like that being posted. Feel free to PM what you would find acceptable form the CB's findings I know savings is one any others?

    You still haven't read it clearly.

    80 to 100 thousand jobs are to be lost in the long term, because "Changed consumer preferences and work practices would lead to permanent declines in certain consumer-facing sectors".

    It has nothing to do with protracted lockdowns. It would be happening anyway, because the pandemic has genuinely brought about a "new normal" in certain aspects of our lives.


  • Options
    #9446
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I posted a link that a 100,000 jobs will be lost as per a finding from the CB. You clearly don't like 'negatives' like that being posted. Feel free to PM what you would find acceptable form the CB's findings I know savings is one any others?

    I have no problem with negatives, there's no escaping them.

    If you present a fraction of a story from an article you've posted a link to, it's probably going to generate discussion.

    My initial response was "indeed" where I posted more of the story. If you'd said then you hadn'tt bothered to read the article, things would have been much clearer.

    You should read the full article, it's quite interesting and you'll probably get a fuller picture than you otherwise would in 280 characters or less.


  • Options
    #9447
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    I have no problem with negatives, there's no escaping them.

    If you present a fraction of a story from an article you've posted a link to, it's probably going to generate discussion.

    My initial response was "indeed" where I posted more of the story. If you'd said then you hadn'tt bothered to read the article, things would have been much clearer.

    You should read the full article, it's quite interesting and you'll probably get a fuller picture than you otherwise would in 280 characters or less.

    Unlike you I find it concerning that a 100,000 jobs will be permanently lost and that is what I drew attention to. You seem to have an issue with me focusing in on that can't help you there so probably best you drop it.


  • Options
    #9448
    Lundstram
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Lundstram


    Quazzie wrote: »
    Let me see if I get this straight. The Government should have factored in young people not complying to guidelines, but its also in no way the young people's fault for the continuation of the lockdown strategy.

    So it's the Government's fault that they didn't allow for young people being selfish pricks, rather then the young people's fault for being selfish pricks?

    Also it's not just young people in their 20's*. There are plenty of 30 and 40 something year olds out there breaking the exact same regulations.

    I would say anyone expecting fit and healthy 14-25 year olds to stay indoors for over 3 months is more of a selfish prick than that age group themselves.

    Works both ways.


  • Options
    #9449
    patnor1011
    Registered Users Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    They know people are just going to throw their hands up in the air at some point and all say fcuk the restrictions.
    So they are just trying to drag it out until we get to that point, so more are vaccinated when it happens.
    They have no intension of lifting restrictions. Just to play it as long as it lasts.

    They already do. My old neighbors visit each other regularly. If the weather is nice you do have 5-10 of them happily chatting together. None of them bothers with any distancing or masks.
    Lol I do have neighbors both of them working for HSE as nurses and they have friends and family at their house every day. They used to have family barbecue during the first lockdown. And ever since...
    Guards at a checkpoint waving you with a smile and have a nice day. If it rains they just sit in a car. Only people deep in covid end of the world religion think that people follow restrictions. Vast majority stopped long time ago and quite rightly so. We need social contact and interaction with others.
    You must be not quite right in the head if you really followed all of it to the letter.


  • Options
    #9450
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Unlike you I find it concerning that a 100,000 jobs will be permanently lost

    I don't recall suggesting that wasn't a point of concern.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9451
    patnor1011
    Registered Users Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    Another one playing the "mental health" card who has been in favour all along of letting the virus rip and fcuk the vulnerable. Disgraceful post. You should hang your head in shame.

    This ripping and fcuking vulnerable was never valid point other than trying to look pious and righteous on the internet.
    Old and vulnerable are not retarded. They know how to protect themselves and do what they can.
    Suggesting that somehow whole mankind is suddenly collectively responsible for their survival is pretty lame.
    If you want to improve their chances stop shipping your old parents to nursing houses and take care of your own old and vulnerable yourself.
    Pretty ironic how society which is used to ship them out is going to chastise young people for some imaginary mortal danger.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement