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

Boggles wrote: »

He peddles lies for money and it has been quite lucrative apparently.

Again don't give him money.

And yet you can't point to one of his lies on that video?

Silentcorner wrote: »

And yet you can't point to one of his lies on that video?

Seriously of all the absolute spoofers to link to, you picked out the ace.

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?

Oh ffs. Still don't understand eh? Because it's not just about deaths. It's about keeping the rate of infection low while we roll out the first ever vaccination programme for covid-19 to prevent people getting seriously ill in the first place.

And if that doesn't do it- I truely can't help you my friend. :rolleyes:

And just one thing Not me ranting and raving about going on about going 'to a pub' 'for a pint' cos you don't understand why we have restrictions.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Yes I want pubs open. I wanted them open last summer, I want them open now. ...

And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

Boggles wrote: »

Seriously of all the absolute spoofers to link to, you picked out the ace.

And yet you can't point out any of his so called spoof in the video I linked?

Just because you are pious in who you listen to doesn't make you right!!!

monkeybutter wrote: »

lay the fat facts out for us here so we don't have to watch his youtube channel make sure to adblock youtube by the way

You want me to spoon feed you?

But you'll take the word of an oceanographer without question ..... because he is on the telly!!!

Silentcorner wrote: »

so overall we didn't see much or any excess death in 2020.

So no actual cited data? I'll just have to take your word for it I suppose...

monkeybutter wrote: »

this is due to lockdown perhaps it is best to compare this to what is currently happening in India, what happened in the US and what happened in the UK

Perhaps indeed!!!

I'll telly you what I won't do...I won't rely on any Irish media outlet to inform me of what is happening anywhere...they have been shoving unbalanced content down our gobs for over a year.

gozunda wrote: »

And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

ah here - you've taken complete leave of your senses at this stage..

this type of hysterical crap serves no purpose

OwenM wrote: »

You are reducing the immorality to a single act, going to the pub and that's not valid.

Lots of other things we do spread the virus, should we stop doing all those things because someone will die? Forever? No more rugby, hurling, dancing, concerts? Christmas dinner with the extended family is now 'immoral'?

Communicable diseases have always and will continue to be a major cause of death, it's just a fact of life. Mortality from covid will soon be very small and we are not acting immorally by claiming back parts of our lives as the numbers improve, this includes going to the pub.

You don't wear a pioneer pin by any chance?

With these people the simple act of going outside is too much for them.

Best not engaging.

Boggles wrote: »

I didn't watch his video, he is a verifiable grifter stealing money from the weak minded, why in the name of fúck are you watching and spreading his dangerous nonsense?

DO NOT GIVE HIM MONEY!!

Ha ha haaaaa....

Boggles you called him a spoofer/grifter/ etc....what you mean is that he is a blasphemer!!!

I don't pay anyone or any media organisation for content...

And you'll take the word of an Oceanographer without question!!!!

gozunda wrote: »

Oh ffs. Still don't understand eh? Because it's not just about deaths. It's about keeping the rate of infection low while we roll out the first ever vaccination programme for covid-19 to prevent people getting seriously ill in the first place.

And if that doesn't do it- I truely can't help you my friend. :rolleyes:

And just one thing Not me ranting and raving about going on about going 'to a pub' 'for a pint' cos you don't understand why we have restrictions.



And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

This is the very act of goalpost-moving though which has been an irritating, and indeed harmful, feature of both government policy and general discourse.

To say that the justification for lockdown is to keep infections low while the vaccine is rolled out is just a narrative plucked from the sky -- either for convenience or by way of selective amnesia. It bears no resemblance to the narrative upon which lockdown was enforced and maintained over a long term. Lockdown was brought in to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and a simultaneous almighty surge of death and suffering (to the tune of many thousands of excess deaths). This is what spurred people to comply with it, this is what spurred national support for the necessity of it.

Lockdown was never just about keeping infections low or preventing death and suffering outright -- it was about preventing infections to such a degree that they would cause the collapse of the healthcare system and death on a tremendous scale. The necessity and proportionality of each of the ongoing restrictions cannot and should not be measured by reference to it all being about keeping Covid low while vaccines are rolled out -- they are to be measured on whether they are actually preventing a collapse of healthcare and tremendous levels of death.

If the government is taking this new narrative, they are effectively saying that lockdown is now ongoing to make the vaccine intiative easier to manage rather than the original and (on paper) far more lockdown-commensurate risk thatbthe health service would collapse. As I've said before, this means that the same extreme measures of suppression of rights are being used to mitigate a much less extreme permutation than what lockdown was based and justified on.

More hysteria from the media - This time from the Irish Times - who have mostly been ok - They headline about AZ clot issues , yet vaccines are proved to be far far leas dangerous than virus , which is on the increase . In other articles they highlight the damage done to young people by the whole lockdown.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-state-regulator-reports-serious-clotting-events-linked-to-astrazeneca-jab-1.4545183

And then to compound a bad Friday , they report (rightly) that NIAC are delaying ther decision on Johnson vaccine until next week. Typical HSE bureaucracy , while the virus is destroying India, we have to wait another week, where is the urgency ? the country has been in lockdown for nearly a full year, people want and need to start living.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This is the very act of goalpost-moving though which has been an irritating, and indeed harmful, feature of both government policy and general discourse.
To say that the justification for lockdown is to keep infections low while the vaccine is rolled out is just a narrative plucked from the sky -- either for convenience or by way of selective amnesia. It bears no resemblance to the narrative upon which lockdown was enforced and maintained over a long term. Lockdown was brought in to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and a simultaneous almighty surge of death and suffering (to the tune of many thousands of excess deaths). This is what spurred people to comply with it, this is what spurred national support for the necessity of it.
Lockdown was never just about keeping infections low or preventing death and suffering outright -- it was about preventing infections to such a degree that they would cause the collapse of the healthcare system and death on a tremendous scale. The necessity and proportionality of each of the ongoing restrictions cannot and should not be measured by reference to it all being about keeping Covid low while vaccines are rolled out -- they are to be measured on whether they are actually preventing a collapse of healthcare and tremendous levels of death. If the government is taking this new narrative, they are effectively saying that lockdown is now ongoing to make the vaccine intiative easier to manage rather than the original and (on paper) far more lockdown-commensurate risk thatbthe health service would collapse. As I've said before, this means that the same extreme measures of suppression of rights are being used to mitigate a much less extreme permutation than what lockdown was based and justified on.

Arthur

You do understand that things can change yes? That we now have vaccines- well before any original estimate as to their development. And yes we have restrictions to keep numbers low so we can get those vaccines administered and reduce the number of people who do get seriously ill in the long run? And yes before we had vaccines - restrictions were also there to keep down the rate of infection so as to help our health services cope with treating those who did get ill and who needed specialist care and treatment. Do you understand any of that? Or do you also have your head proverbially stuck permanently in the sand?

Because once we have people vaccinated- we can all get on with returning to life as normal without restrictions. Its that simple.

But nah - something something "suppression" of my rights - bastards - shakes fist - and etc

Edit. Sorry Boggles. You just bet me to the conclusion

francogarbanzo wrote: »

You are underthinking it.

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others? We know that the flu causes hundreds of deaths each year. We have had basically no flu deaths since the start of lockdowns. Isn't this a good thing? How can you morally justify opening restaurants back up, for example, when you know for a fact it will directly lead to flu deaths?

There is a vaccine for the flu take it if you are worried about your morality.

What the flu has to got to do with Covid I have no idea.

Now we have very effective vaccines for Covid, again avail when you get the opportunity, for your morals like and other stuff.

Boggles wrote: »

There is a vaccine for the flu take it if you are worried about your morality.

What the flu has to got to do with Covid I have no idea.

Now we have very effective vaccines for Covid, again avail when you get the opportunity, for your morals like and other stuff.

So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?

If it's because Virus B kills fewer people than Virus A, which I assume is the reason, then what is the number of deaths per year that is acceptable in the name of normality? If the answer is "I don't know" or you won't answer, then your view is based on nothing but feelings, even more so than the anti-lockdown/pro-liberty view.