Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings

Silentcorner · 22-04-2021 09:57PM

growleaves wrote: »

Yes it may be that lockdowns increase infections by forcing people together indoors.

Be honest how many people here had heard the word "lockdown" used in a medical-scientific context prior to March 2020?

Its not as if members of NPHET studied it in medical school. They never heard of it.

Even masks might help increase infections by trapping viral load at the front of the face.

In truth no one knows. But Irish people are at pains to show that they are on board with The Science. After all The Science is never wrong.

Some more classics from the recent history of scientific modelling:

Scientists thought Mercury was supposed to have surface temperatures of about 500C, but then recently discovered ice at the poles of Mercury.

Uranus' upper atmosphere was thought to be about -250C, but they have recently discovered it on fire, at about 600C.

I remember Micheal Martin speaking last winter, can't remember when exactly, I don't listen to him much...he was recommending wearing masks outdoors on streets..."the science is clear he remarked"...what was the transmission rate outdoors, 1% of cases or something of that nature...he never mentioned what percentage of them weren't wearing masks!!!

If nothing else, whenever you hear a politician say the words "following the science" switch off...they are most likely spoofing or being spoofed to!

normanoffside · 22-04-2021 10:02PM

howwatermelon wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/news/were-still-a-little-concerned-dr-tony-holohan-urges-public-not-to-get-ahead-of-easing-of-restrictions-40345310.html

“We’re still a little concerned”

To be fair 'a little bit concerned' is probably the lowest level of concern on the NPHET concern-o-meter.

bear1 · 22-04-2021 10:16PM

I despair for the country.
"We are on track for June"
"June shouldn't be the focus of attention"
"If we don't get the Johnson shot then June is not possible"
"Don't plan holidays"
All in one week and it's Thursday.

daydorunrun · 22-04-2021 10:17PM

I’m really not sure masks as they are currently being used are actually reducing infections. People grabbing dirty rags out of their pockets or hand bags where they keep car keys and phones, worn under chins etc. Majority of people are really just ticking a box at this stage.

22-04-2021 10:23PM

Tuned into Prime Time there, have a go at this cracker: "In lieu of trends in recent days, is it time to pull back on phased reopening?" This is the type of irresponsible rhetoric being bandied about. Our national broadcaster, unashamedly fronting for NPHET. Stop f*cking torturing us, administer the vaccines and reopen the country without delay. We're fed up of this ultra-conservative cabbage. Give me strength, it's gone beyond caricature at this stage.

ypres5 · 22-04-2021 10:24PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Desperate for any crumbs from the Masters plate eh?

In other words the Boss isn't happy and we the public better not "misbehave..."

And one of his Lieutenants Nolan,

Reading those quotes it's like hopping into a time machine back to last year. Same patronizing, vacuous bull**** from the chomedome in chief.

Stormyteacup · 22-04-2021 10:37PM

gozunda wrote: »

Not what was said or implied at all.

You've missed what was said by an entire continents worth of "euphemisms"

First vaccination is the primary means by which people do not have "suffer and die" from infectious illnesses every year.

Covid is a new disease which unlike existing annual infectious diseases is something which there is little or no natural immunity and little or no previous body of immunisation data or vaccines.

So while we're sorting all that ****e out - most of the world has adopted restrictions so we can get on to at least a base footing as with other diseases.

And as stated its not soley 'deaths' which are the issue - its managing the rate of infection whilst the first full vaccination programme is rolled out.

And once we have people vaccinated - we have the means to control covid outbreaks just like every other infectious disease. So the current approach is the absolute and direct opposite of "the abandonment of people to suffering and death".

So yeah perhaps best to take the "hypocrisy" and "selfishness" argument and bottle it for another day because it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny tbf

The hypocrisy and selfishness do stand up to scrutiny.

Consider the claim that we have, as many have asserted, reduced lethal infections of influenza through measures adopted to curb the spread of the current virus.

So next Christmas, armed with all the knowledge we now have about how respiratory viruses spread, people will happily go into a pub/restaurant, or indoors in a relatives home, knowing their behaviour could transmit a virus to someone unaware they are vulnerable to it.

If influenza related deaths return to normal levels next season or the following one, will the public be shamed for not taking precautions to save lives ?

It’s guaranteed that if we closed business next winter and legislated again for people to stay indoors unless essential, lives would be saved - so why would we not do that?

PTH2009 · 22-04-2021 10:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Tuned into Prime Time there, have a go at this cracker: "In lieu of trends in recent days, is it time to pull back on phased reopening?" This is the type of irresponsible rhetoric being bandied about. Our national broadcaster, unashamedly fronting for NPHET. Stop f*cking torturing us, administer the vaccines and reopen the country without delay. We're fed up of this ultra-conservative cabbage. Give me strength, it's gone beyond caricature at this stage.

It's crazy like Why are we having the most strictest lockdown while our near neighbours are getting back to normal and have no plans going back into lockdown ??, Our national broadcaster are doing everything in there power to release negative news

Vaccine supply/problems and the owl Variants is the get out of jail card for the leaders here. MM speech before the May bank holiday is going to be fun

22-04-2021 10:39PM

Aph2016 wrote: »

13 months and we're still looking at Tony Holohans ugly mug. Cases seem to rise every time he shows his face.

So does my fcuking blood pressure.

Beechwoodspark · 22-04-2021 10:40PM

That foolish man Owen Corry on basically demanding international flights are back and travel back to peak levels.

A foolish man who hasn’t a bulls notion

FintanMcluskey · 22-04-2021 10:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Tuned into Prime Time there, have a go at this cracker: "In lieu of trends in recent days, is it time to pull back on phased reopening?" This is the type of irresponsible rhetoric being bandied about. Our national broadcaster, unashamedly fronting for NPHET. Stop f*cking torturing us, administer the vaccines and reopen the country without delay. We're fed up of this ultra-conservative cabbage. Give me strength, it's gone beyond caricature at this stage.

1.2 million vaccines in arms

There is no way out it seems

My advice to anyone who can is get out of this country immediately

Obviously when the travel embargo is lifted

growleaves · 22-04-2021 10:49PM

Stormyteacup wrote: »

The hypocrisy and selfishness do stand up to scrutiny.

Consider the claim that we have, as many have asserted, reduced lethal infections of influenza through measures adopted to curb the spread of the current virus.

So next Christmas, armed with all the knowledge we now have about how respiratory viruses spread, people will happily go into a pub/restaurant, or indoors in a relatives home, knowing their behaviour could transmit a virus to someone unaware they are vulnerable to it.

If influenza related deaths return to normal levels next season or the following one, will the public be shamed for not taking precautions to save lives ?

It’s guaranteed that if we closed business next winter and legislated again for people to stay indoors unless essential, lives would be saved - so why would we not do that?

You're assuming a coherence and internal consistency that isn't there. The case for restrictions has been a shaggy dog story from the start.

The biggest tectonic shift was from March 2020 to April 2020. From predictions of mass death and hundreds of millions of corpses to Sweden being in the EU average, oh but wait they are not doing as well as Denmark! In fact all their Nordic neighbours...etc., etc.

gozunda · 22-04-2021 10:58PM

Stormyteacup wrote: »

The hypocrisy and selfishness do stand up to scrutiny.Consider the claim that we have, as many have asserted, reduced lethal infections of influenza through measures adopted to curb the spread of the current virus. So next Christmas, armed with all the knowledge we now have about how respiratory viruses spread, people will happily go into a pub/restaurant, or indoors in a relatives home, knowing their behaviour could transmit a virus to someone unaware they are vulnerable to it.If influenza related deaths return to normal levels next season or the following one, will the public be shamed for not taking precautions to save lives It’s guaranteed that if we closed business next winter and legislated again for people to stay indoors unless essential, lives would be saved - so why would we not do that?

Rubbish and Nope to that. They don't.

One word instead. "vaccination". Covid, influenza, etc.

Atm we're keeping the rate of covid infection low atm so we can roll out the very first fulll vaccination programme for covid - A new infectious disease with little or no prior history of immunisation and little or no history of vaccination.

So let's get with the programme at hand. And yes also influenza or any infectious disease which already has a a dynamic means of infection control via vaccination. Indeed maybe just maybe we can learn from the current situation.

So the only ones with using any apparent "hypocrisy" and "selfishness" are those with their heads in the sand. Mais ce la vie.

But I guess you're for lots more lockdowns and restrictions from what you've said yes?

Graham · 22-04-2021 11:10PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

1.2 million vaccines in arms

There is no way out it seems

More vaccines in arms would be the glaringly obvious way out.

gozunda · 22-04-2021 11:13PM

Graham wrote: »

More vaccines in arms would be the glaringly obvious way out.

True. It's nearly like some are advocating for more and longer lockdowns :eek:

FlubberJones · 22-04-2021 11:13PM

Stormyteacup wrote: »

The hypocrisy and selfishness do stand up to scrutiny.

Consider the claim that we have, as many have asserted, reduced lethal infections of influenza through measures adopted to curb the spread of the current virus.

So next Christmas, armed with all the knowledge we now have about how respiratory viruses spread, people will happily go into a pub/restaurant, or indoors in a relatives home, knowing their behaviour could transmit a virus to someone unaware they are vulnerable to it.

If influenza related deaths return to normal levels next season or the following one, will the public be shamed for not taking precautions to save lives ?

It’s guaranteed that if we closed business next winter and legislated again for people to stay indoors unless essential, lives would be saved - so why would we not do that?

If they are vulnerable.... then let them stay home and isolate...not me.

Stormyteacup · 22-04-2021 11:13PM

gozunda wrote: »

Nope to that.

One word instead. "vaccination". Covid, influenza, etc.

Atm we're keeping the rate of covid infection low so we can roll out the very first fulll vaccination programme for covid - A new infectious disease with little or no prior history of immunisation and little or no history of vaccination.

So let's get with the programme. Ditto influenza or any infectious disease which already have a a dynamic means of infection control.

So the only ones with using any apparent "hypocrisy" and "selfishness" are those with their heads in the sand. Mais ce la vie.

What you are saying is illogical. We will continue to vaccinate for influenza as before.

This year we have apparently prevented influenza deaths.

A not insignificant portion of influenza deaths are in those who have received vaccination, particularly in children where it can be as high as 30%.

Next year people will die from contacting influenza who otherwise may not have, had we once again enacted closures and restrictions on movement.

Our behaviours in the future will contribute to the spread of viruses and therefore deaths from those viruses. On a lesser scale perhaps but to some extent. Therein lies the hypocrisy of those claiming these temporary restrictions are to save lives at all costs and if you’re not fully behind them you’re selfish.

To keep the healthcare system functioning I can understand, outside of that people will find a way to be comfortable with a certain level of death from infectious diseases, alongside living a life with normal levels of social interaction.

niallo27 · 22-04-2021 11:24PM

Is there a more hated man in this country than Tony H, I think when most people saw his face today there was a collective groan knowing any easing of restrictions would now be pushed back.

hynesie08 · 22-04-2021 11:27PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Is there a more hated man in this country than Tony H, I think when most people saw his face today there was a collective groan knowing any easing of restrictions would now be pushed back.

No, I don't hate people I've never met, it's a bit weird.

ben.schlomo · 22-04-2021 11:30PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

No, I don't hate people I've never met, it's a bit weird.

Pretty normal in everyday society actually. Happens throughout the world's of politics, sport, entertainment etc. Look it up.

niallo27 · 22-04-2021 11:31PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

No, I don't hate people I've never met, it's a bit weird.

Maybe hate is a bit strong, maybe most disliked person in the country.

gozunda · 22-04-2021 11:49PM

Stormyteacup wrote: »

What you are saying is illogical. We will continue to vaccinate for influenza as before.This year we have apparently prevented influenza deaths.
A not insignificant portion of influenza deaths are in those who have received vaccination, particularly in children where it can be as high as 30%. Next year people will die from contacting influenza who otherwise may not have, had we once again enacted closures and restrictions on movement. Our behaviours in the future will contribute to the spread of viruses and therefore deaths from those viruses. On a lesser scale perhaps but to some extent. Therein lies the hypocrisy of those claiming these temporary restrictions are to save lives at all costs and if you’re not fully behind them you’re selfish.
To keep the healthcare system functioning I can understand, outside of that people will find a way to be comfortable with a certain level of death from infectious diseases, alongside living a life with normal levels of social interaction.

No. It is rather your argument which has no logic

Maybe just maybe people will learn that vaccination works to help prevent illness and deaths. Covid has yet to achieve the same level of parity with regard to vaccination as other annual diseases. Hence why we have restrictions etc.

We know that there's already been a high rate of death with covid. Much higher than any recent annual influenza.

So get with the programme. Reduce infection rates. Reduce deaths. Vaccinate. Its not difficult to understand.

You say

Therein lies the hypocrisy of those claiming these temporary restrictions are to save lives at all costs and if you’re not fully behind them you’re selfish.

Not anything I've said btw. Restrictions are there to reduce and keep down the rate of infection whilst we roll out our vaccination programme.

But it seems you want lockdowns as regular features every winter otherwise we're all hypocrites? ...

A truely bizarre pov.

francogarbanzo · 23-04-2021 06:52AM

gozunda wrote: »

No. It is rather your argument which has no logic

Maybe just maybe people will learn that vaccination works to help prevent illness and deaths. Covid has yet to achieve the same level of parity with regard to vaccination as other annual diseases. Hence why we have restrictions etc.

We know that there's already been a high rate of death with covid. Much higher than any recent annual influenza.

So get with the programme. Reduce infection rates. Reduce deaths. Vaccinate. Its not difficult to understand.

You say

Not anything I've said btw. Restrictions are there to reduce and keep down the rate of infection whilst we roll out our vaccination programme.

But it seems you want lockdowns as regular features every winter otherwise we're all hypocrites? ...

A truely bizarre pov.

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint”. Why is that OK?

ingo1984 · 23-04-2021 06:55AM

Their plan for May and June will all be a smoke screen again. Same as the 'we are making progress, you can now go 20km instead of 5km'. On paper looks like progress but nobody was really adhering to the 5km in the first place.

You'll have 'oh hotels and b and bs will be open for june'. Again looks like progress but who wants to visit a hotel with no bar or restaurant open?

You'll have 'oh pubs and restaurants can open for outdoor service'. 1. How many pubs/restaurants have any outdoor seating? 2. Of the ones that have outdoor seating how many have enough capacity to justify opening and turning a meaningful profit? 3. They'll just say 'thanks, but we'll stay closed and receive business support income until we can reopen fully.

Deusexmachina · 23-04-2021 06:57AM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A small percentage of the people who get into a car will die every day. This is not an argument for stopping driving.
Living is risky. The alternative is worse.

Graces7 · 23-04-2021 06:59AM

MrMiyagi12345 wrote: »

Could argue the exact same about obeying restrictions. If someone wants to eat themselves into an early grave that's their perogative. Likewise it's my perogative to get on with my life. I should not have my freedoms curtailed to protect them.

Nooooo. There is a difference between self inflicting self damage and inflicting the very real risk of a dangerous infection on others. Including you of course.

Your argument is a non sequitur and irrelevant.

Graces7 · 23-04-2021 07:13AM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Not really though.

growleaves wrote: »

Yes it may be that lockdowns increase infections by forcing people together indoors.

Or as we see here more likely that folk are defying the lockdown and gathering illegally..shut in behind locked doors rather than the safe way to live that we have here.

Del Griffith · 23-04-2021 07:14AM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint”. Why is that OK?

Get a grip

Stormyteacup · 23-04-2021 07:44AM

Graces7 wrote: »

growleaves wrote: »

Yes it may be that lockdowns increase infections by forcing people together indoors.

Or as we see here more likely that folk are defying the lockdown and gathering illegally..shut in behind locked doors rather than the safe way to live that we have here.

I couldn’t disagree more with the completely risk averse way of life you would have the nation adopt, but at least there is no hypocrisy.

You do realise that as soon as it’s sanctioned by government, people will be right back to ‘risky’ behaviours such as bars and restaurants, celebration parties, travelling abroad and otherwise living in a way that is conducive to the spread of illnesses, even knowing there is a risk their behaviour could cause sickness and death (to a lesser extent than currently, granted).

Many of those people spent the last year condemning anyone questioning or disagreeing with those running this sh*tshow as selfish idiots.

kieran26 · 23-04-2021 07:52AM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint”. Why is that OK?

Its entirely natural to want to live your life as normal and do normal things.
Nothing we do is without risk. Normality will resume soon.

This is just hysterical, overly emotive nonsense,

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X Read OP For Mod Warnings