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

Boggles wrote: »

You still using deaths as the single metric for gauging this pandemic 13 months in? I mean at this stage, that is very silly isn't it? And pretty irksome.

Also Are all viruses equal?

Yes. Ultimately that's what we're trying to avoid here, right? Contacts, which lead to cases, which lead to deaths. Hospitalizations, which directly or indirectly lead to deaths. Overwhelmed healthcare systems, which lead to delayed or cancelled treatments, which lead to deaths.

The only reason we're talking about this virus is because of its potential to cause deaths, directly or indirectly.

"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?" Would love to hear your justification.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

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.

I believe that was already well answered francogarbanzpo

Btw how's that pub going dilemma thing going for you? You know where you simultaneously want to go to the pub whilst believing you are killing people doing so?

gozunda wrote: »

I believe that was already well answered francogarbanzpo

Btw how's that pub going dilemma thing going for you? You know where you simultaneously want to go to the pub whilst believing you are killing people doing so?

Where was it answered? I've read nothing but deflection and hand waving.

Obviously my point flew over your head there. I'm not the one calling for the opening or visiting of pubs to be illegal, so my view is consistent. People die due to people going to pubs, and also pubs shouldn't be illegal. Not now, not last year, and not "after covid".

Akesh wrote: »

This is a myth. You do not know that. Perhaps when you come down from that high horse, you might want to consider the impact that variants will have. A vaccine isn't a silver bullet solution. There will be mutations that the vaccine may or may not be effective against. People will also refuse the vaccine. It's very clear that a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. It's amusing watching some people pretend that they are some kind of expert, ridiculing others while making a completely oversimplified arguments and mocking people for protecting their rights.

Eh who's speculating exactly?

A myth he says!

Ah better tell the scientists that.

But chrst we have people posting here losing their melt everytime a variant is mentioned on the media and we get weeks worth of comments such as 'de variants" and comments along the line that they've only come up these 'variants" to keep us locked up!

And then the self same 'variants' are simultaneously being used to hit people over the head with because variants exist and therefore vaccines won't work!

But I'm no expert btw - just a regular poster with some common sense apparently. A rare thing around here it would appear

Boggles wrote: »

You still using deaths as the single metric for gauging this pandemic 13 months in? I mean at this stage, that is very silly isn't it? And pretty irksome.

Also Are all viruses equal?

So why are restrictions in place currently?

Lots of opinions, but two prevalent similar arguments;

A. Keeping infections low in case of sudden surge due to variants/massive socialising to ensure health services aren’t overwhelmed, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

B. To prevent people getting seriously ill or dying, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

You can have some of A and some of B if you like, however after restrictions are lifted, you can prevent people getting seriously ill or dying from common viruses by always wearing a mask, keeping contacts low as possible, not travelling very far etc.

So how many people who are patting themselves on the back for preventing illness and death by following every nonsense restriction and nodding along with government, will, once vaccination rollout is complete, happily discard the mask, book a holiday and head to their favourite restaurant?

That’s the hypocrisy. If you’re argument is A - fine, it’s ridiculously over-cautious and disproportionate, considering the damage done, but that’s just imo.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Where was it answered? I've read nothing but deflection and hand waving. Obviously my point flew over your head there. I'm not the one calling for the opening or visiting of pubs to be illegal, so my view is consistent. People die due to people going to pubs, and also pubs shouldn't be illegal. Not now, not last year, and not "after covid".

Go back and read the bit about vaccinations. You must have missed it. You know the bit referred to before you came up with the beautiful piece of logic deflection that you believe going to pubs will kill people - whilst you simultaneously demand the right to go the pub!

And btw I haven't called for the opening or visiting of pubs to be made illegal at all.

You really are quite mixed up francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

Huh?

It's hypocritical to take a vaccine and return to normality?

Are you against that?

Maybe give it another read?

Boggles wrote: »

I did twice.

So if I take a vaccine and get back to living pre pandemic I'm a hypocrite?

That was the sum of your post, correct?

That going forward no deaths are acceptable all risk has to be eliminated and if you don't subscribe to that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite?

Lets be honest, that is great big pile of dripping contrarian horse shít isn't it?

Listen, vaccines going in to arms, things are opening up.

It will end, chin up.

You've had plenty of opportunity to refute it, why don't you? Can you?

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Yes am looking forward to it. I’m comfortable with resuming normal life knowing that viruses will continue to circulate and people will die because of that.

Just wondering how all the heroes currently saving lives masking up going into supermarkets will make their peace with it.

Do you not go into supermarkets?

Boggles wrote: »

You missed another question. In your own good time.



Bare with me, there is method here.

We will get your answers, trust me.

OK I'll bite. Yes, I agree some viruses justify some mitigation measures.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

OK I'll bite. Yes, I agree some viruses justify some mitigation measures.

Okay we are nearly there, last question and it is actually one of yours.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others?

gozunda wrote: »

Its nearly like the North has something that we haven't got to the same stage as of yet ....

I wonder what that might be ...

Oh yeah - vaccinations!

Jfc...

And how is that the public, or the businesses who have been closed for month's fault?

Yes we know our vaccination rollout is slow, that doesn't make it easier or suddenly excuse the entire situation.

Boggles wrote: »

So you are one of these heroes you spoke of?

Grand so.

Aha you got me, I walked right into your cunning trap.

Christ, more one liners from Dr. Doom...only a couple of days back in Charge...

Tony Holohan urges public to obey restrictions..... The country is back on a knife-edge.....“give us reason to be cautious”.... " people do not “get ahead of themselves.......Travel: consideration would be given to this but it will come “much later”."..The overall situation is “volatile and vulnerable”

So much for a lid being put on Hulahoop by the new Secretary General in Health.







(don't bother replying Hynsie08)

gozunda wrote: »

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

Yes, that’s all very understandable. It’s also an epic rewriting of the lockdown justification, based on nothing more than saying what effectively amounts to “things change”.

Lockdown is considered a very extreme measure to address what was purported to be a very extreme potential outcome. It was not designed to prevent any deaths, it wasn’t even designed to prevent many deaths, it was designed to prevent collapse of healthcare and — with that — death on an enormous scale.

So when you say “things can change” — you are essentially saying that the permutation which lockdown is designed to prevent is now different right? So, one year later, we continue to live under what are historically extreme and prolonged restrictions, but the justification for them is now (according to you) based on a far less extreme outcome. Am I with you so far?

So how can the proportionality of the restrictions still be justifiable if the effectively same level of restrictions are being employed to address what is a lesser risk? I mean, Boggles (who I see also responded to my post) was on here a few weeks ago parroting the government’s justification for the 5km limit and any attempts to introduce nuance as regards the proportionality of the measure were met with the exact thing you are engaging in right now — which is simply parroting what the intention of the restriction was, saying that people have their heads in the sand for not understanding the intention (which we all understand), but seemingly unwilling to actually acknowledge that ‘intention’ is also subject to ‘proportionality’. And now here we are with the 5km rule gone and it is clear that the proportionality of that measure, in terms of the ultimate risk it was designed to prevent, was a complete and total joke.

You have said it yourself, we have now moved from a narrative of preventing collapse of healthcare and death on an enormous scale to something which is quite some depth beneath that in terms of extremity. And I have my head in the sand for questioning why the same / similar means are being used to mitigate a lesser risk?