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?

1…310311313315316

Comments

  • #9362
    LameBeaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #9363
    Quazzie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #9364
    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


  • #9365
    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.


  • #9366
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #9367
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭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?


  • #9368
    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?


  • #9369
    LameBeaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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 .


  • #9370
    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.


  • #9371
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #9372
    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?


  • #9373
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9374
    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.


  • #9375
    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.


  • #9376
    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.


  • #9377
    patnor1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9378
    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.


  • #9379
    patnor1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9380
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Lundstram wrote: »
    I would say anyone expecting fit and healthy 14-25 year olds to stay indoors for over 3 months

    They weren't asked to stay indoors for over 3 months


  • #9381
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Graham wrote: »
    I don't recall suggesting that wasn't a point of concern.

    I don't recall you saying it was a concern either. You took issue that I mentioned it. I also noticed you had no comment to make to the poster that said those jobs were of low value to the economy, notwithstanding the fact there is 100,000 people behind that statistic. I have nothing further to say to you on the topic that I haven't already said.


  • Advertisement
  • #9382
    RGS
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭RGS


    patnor1011 wrote: »
    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.

    Even NPHET have accepted people wont adhere to the restrictions with Glynn asking people who intend meeting to do so outdoors.


    Even Glynn has accepted hes losing the battle.


  • #9383
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    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 .

    Can you show the evidence you have that they would have being lost?

    Good to see you care about those low value people.


  • #9384
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,152 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    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?

    Of course some people will break restrictions. That’s a given. We ban theft but that doesn’t mean nobody will ever steal. It just gives a mechanism to deal with breaches of the rule.

    If not through restrictions, how would you suggest the government gets the numbers down over the last year? Take the post Christmas period as an example. How should they have dealt with it?


  • #9385
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    The majority of which were of low value to the economy anyway or which would have been lost even without any Covid restrictions .
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you show the evidence you have that they would have being lost?

    Good to see you care about those low value people.

    Obviously pretty hard to prove something would have happened...

    I think retail already are (and will continue to be) particularly hard hit.

    Covid has accelerated a trend that's been seen across many countries where retail is shifting from a purely shop/shelf based proposition to a blended model consisting of traditional outlets, online shopping and dabbling in more experiential type outlets. As employment in the former decreases, employment in the latter is likely to increase although who knows if it will be to the same level.


  • #9386
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you show the evidence you have that they would have being lost?

    Good to see you care about those low value people.

    It's basically what the CB have stated.

    These job losses are not a result of the lockdowns, but more the result of the pandemic itself.
    People have dramatically changed how they work and how they shop. This is going to have consequences for footfall in traditional customer facing businesses in cities and towns.

    It was all happening prior to the pandemic, but covid accelerated it to a huge extent.


  • #9387
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    LameBeaver wrote: »
    Remind me again how many threads on this forum you have been banned from chief.

    Mod

    Dont post in this thread again.


  • #9388
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭sabat


    We are now at the beginning of the end-the people have voted with their feet.


  • #9389
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It's also a given that the longer restrictions last, the more people will break them. At what point does it become a failure of policy rather than a failure of the people?

    Post Christmas, I think harsh restrictions were the correct choice. If anything, I think they should have been even harsher, with more strict enforcement but, and this is the key part, for a shorter period of time. Short, harsh, proper lockdowns with periods of relative relaxation in between would be preferable to the not really lockdown but it might as well be for the majority of people we've been in for the majority of the last 6 months.

    Harsh lockdown was not the plan. Proactive suppression was the methodology in play, but the government made a balls of it over Christmas leaving us in this predicament.

    There are no good options available to us at the moment. I think what we're currently doing is close enough to the least worst option.


  • #9390
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    sabat wrote: »
    We are now at the beginning of the end-the people have voted with their feet.

    Actually, mobility data suggests we're still doing well on the adherence front.


  • Advertisement
  • #9391
    TonyMaloney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭TonyMaloney


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I agree they made a balls of things over Christmas to be fair. For all I want to see a faster opening now, I also think the speed and extent of our opening at Christmas was a mistake.

    The speed and extent was a mistake, and arguably a bigger one was not shutting down again prior to Christmas as the size of our mistake was made clear in the data.

    I'd love to see a faster reopening too, but I can also understand nphet's hesitancy to provide it. It would undoubtedly be a big gamble.
    One worth taking? For some. Maybe


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement