Newstalk - Breakfast Show

Banana Republic 1

DeanAustin wrote: »

Ah stop will you. There is a coherent argument for having a less strict lockdown. Some other countries are doing it. In any decent society, you have a discussion around this and give a voice to all the arguments. Not just shut down the other side because you don't agree with them.

You are aware that a good percentage of this country don't agree with locking down like we have? Giving voice to that argument at least allows those people's argument to be aired and debunked if it genuinely is the wrong thing to do.



That's an awful post. Next stop...Godwinsville.

Those other countries governments didn’t defund their health service for decades.

DeanAustin

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Those other countries governments didn’t defund their health service for decades.

Which ones? And presumably you're looking at their spending per head of population compared to ours?

Cole

DeanAustin wrote: »

Ah stop will you. There is a coherent argument for having a less strict lockdown. Some other countries are doing it. In any decent society, you have a discussion around this and give a voice to all the arguments. Not just shut down the other side because you don't agree with them.

You are aware that a good percentage of this country don't agree with locking down like we have? Giving voice to that argument at least allows those people's argument to be aired and debunked if it genuinely is the wrong thing to do.

I'm all for discussion of different arguments, but seeing as we're getting specific, I'm just curious about that figure...?

DeanAustin

Cole wrote: »

I'm all for discussion of different arguments, but seeing as we're getting specific, I'm just curious about that figure...?

I know it's The Journal, but in a poll of around 15,000 people in mid October, they had 43% in favour of Level 5, 19% in favour of Level 4 and 35% saying we should stick on Level 3.

So you'd have to say at least a third of people were opposed to the lockdown. That's consistent with some other polls I've seen mentioned on here.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

Ah stop will you. There is a coherent argument for having a less strict lockdown. Some other countries are doing it. In any decent society, you have a discussion around this and give a voice to all the arguments. Not just shut down the other side because you don't agree with them.

You are aware that a good percentage of this country don't agree with locking down like we have? Giving voice to that argument at least allows those people's argument to be aired and debunked if it genuinely is the wrong thing to do.



That's an awful post. Next stop...Godwinsville.

Ah stop yourself. You are being incredibly selective with your points here without - similar to Ciara Kelly - considering the inherent differences in the Irish healthcare system vs. other European countries.

You are aware there were polls in which the majority of those polled said the restrictions weren’t tough enough? But sure ignore those.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

Which ones? And presumably you're looking at their spending per head of population compared to ours?

It’s not about historic spending per capita, it’s about where we are now - and the number of beds in the system, and particularly ICU beds (I’ve made this point with the stats but you continue to ignore it) compared to other countries. Our total (public and private) ICU bed per capita is just over half the European average, and that includes those in the private system. There’s actually no agreement in place yet re the private system for bed utilization during phase 2 btw, it’s still a WIP. So the available bed numbers is actually less than than usual as things stand right now.

And again, Ciara Kelly is fully aware of all of that, which is why her comments on lockdown are IMO completely disingenuous.

Cole

DeanAustin wrote: »

I know it's The Journal, but in a poll of around 15,000 people in mid October, they had 43% in favour of Level 5, 19% in favour of Level 4 and 35% saying we should stick on Level 3.

So you'd have to say at least a third of people were opposed to the lockdown. That's consistent with some other polls I've seen mentioned on here.

Fair enough

Banana Republic 1

DeanAustin wrote: »

Which ones? And presumably you're looking at their spending per head of population compared to ours?

Denmark !

DeanAustin

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ah stop yourself. You are being incredibly selective with your points here without - similar to Ciara Kelly - considering the inherent differences in the Irish healthcare system vs. other European countries.

You are aware there were polls in which the majority of those polled said the restrictions weren’t tough enough? But sure ignore those.

I'm not ignoring them at all. I've said that at least a third of the country don't want this lockdown or feel the restrictions are too much. By definition, that'd mean that up to 66% of the population are in favour of them.

My point is this - both sides deserve to have their argument aired in public. You seem to think that the sizable minority shouldn't have their voice heard.

zerosugarbuzz

DeanAustin wrote: »

I'm not ignoring them at all. I've said that at least a third of the country don't want this lockdown or feel the restrictions are too much. By definition, that'd mean that up to 66% of the population are in favour of them.

My point is this - both sides deserve to have their argument aired in public. You seem to think that the sizable minority shouldn't have their voice heard.

Would these be the same polls that said fine gale would have a majority in the last election? Whom ever pays for the poll gets the result they want, otherwise they use another polling company, fact.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

I'm not ignoring them at all. I've said that at least a third of the country don't want this lockdown or feel the restrictions are too much. By definition, that'd mean that up to 66% of the population are in favour of them.

My point is this - both sides deserve to have their argument aired in public. You seem to think that the sizable minority shouldn't have their voice heard.

WTAF?

Where did I say I don't think people shouldn't have their voice heard? Oh that's right, I didn't.

You seem to not understand however that when people come out with nonsense they will be challenged on it, which is AGAIN why I believe that Kelly's comments were disnigenuous because she is fully aware of the full facts around bed capacity which she repeatedly ignores in favour of making rabble-rousing contrarian soundbytes.

Riddle me this - so if 33% of people in a random poll said we should all wear red socks on Tuesday and failure to do so was punisable by death would you say they deserve to be heard too?

DeanAustin

ButtersSuki wrote: »

WTAF?

Where did I say I don't think people shouldn't have their voice heard? Oh that's right, I didn't.

You seem to not understand however that when people come out with nonsense they will be challenged on it, which is AGAIN why I believe that Kelly's comments were disnigenuous because she is fully aware of the full facts around bed capacity which she repeatedly ignores in favour of making rabble-rousing contrarian soundbytes.

Riddle me this - so if 33% of people in a random poll said we should all wear red socks on Tuesday and failure to do so was punisable by death would you say they deserve to be heard too?

Rather than just challenge Kelly's opinions, you're also casting doubt on her motivation for making the comments as if someone in her position couldn't possibly believe what she's saying. That's not just challenging her argument, it's undermining her right to make it in the first place. I posted links to two other medical professionals who also agree with what Kelly has argued.

You're jumping the shark a bit now with the bolded statement.

DeanAustin

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Would these be the same polls that said fine gale would have a majority in the last election? Whom ever pays for the poll gets the result they want, otherwise they use another polling company, fact.

It's a survey on their website that updates in real time and, of the three options, it was a relatively even split. In fact, the biggest share wanted Level 5 restrictions so maybe The Journal manipulated the poll that way? Either way, that doesn't get away from the fact that a sizable minority believe that this lockdown is too much. It also tallies with other numbers I've seen people mention on here.

But, if you don't like the message, just rubbish the messenger. If you seriously think that there isn't a sizable percentage of the Irish population who doesn't agree with this lockdown, you have your head in the sand.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

Rather than just challenge Kelly's opinions, you're also casting doubt on her motivation for making the comments as if someone in her position couldn't possibly believe what she's saying. That's not just challenging her argument, it's undermining her right to make it in the first place. I posted links to two other medical professionals who also agree with what Kelly has argued.

You're jumping the shark a bit now with the bolded statement.

For the many reasons I outlined I don't believe what she's saying. She has previous form in this btw, like when she said Travellers were welcome to park their caravans on her street. But let me guess, you believe her on that too?

I was exaggerating to highlight a point. Your logic was that if a sizeable minority posited something then they should be heard. I countered by saying sure they should be heard, but if their point is found to be flawed or ridiculous, they should be challeneged on that.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

It's a survey on their website that updates in real time and, of the three options, it was a relatively even split. In fact, the biggest share wanted Level 5 restrictions so maybe The Journal manipulated the poll that way? Either way, that doesn't get away from the fact that a sizable minority believe that this lockdown is too much. It also tallies with other numbers I've seen people mention on here.

But, if you don't like the message, just rubbish the messenger. If you seriously think that there isn't a sizable percentage of the Irish population who doesn't agree with this lockdown, you have your head in the sand.

You clearly have no idea how serious this is.

What are you saying then - if people don't agree with something they should be free to do what they want?

I actually think you're trolling now tbh.

DeanAustin

ButtersSuki wrote: »

You clearly have no idea how serious this is.

What are you saying then - if people don't agree with something they should be free to do what they want?

I actually think you're trolling now tbh.

Of course I understand how serious it is.

My point is simple. You have a point of view - that the lockdown is necessary. That's a valid argument. Ciara Kelly has a different opinion, supported by about a third of the country and other medical professionals, that the lockdown on this scale isn't necessary. That's also a valid argument.

My point clearly isn't that people should be free to do what they want. I personally don't agree with this lockdown but I'm observing it. My point is that people should be free to express an opinion and not have judgement passed on the motivation for expressing that opinion. Debate how wrong Kelly is all day long but it's insulting to her and to people who hold the same opinion to suggest that she is motivated purely by attention getting.

Play the ball, not the man.

You seem incapable of dealing with an opinion that doesn't agree with your own to the extent that you're accusing Ciara Kelly of expressing an opinion purely to get attention and accusing me of trolling.

wirelessdude01

DeanAustin wrote: »

You seem incapable of dealing with an opinion that doesn't agree with your own to the extent that you're accusing Ciara Kelly of expressing an opinion purely to get attention.

Well Ciara Kelly has positioned herself as a "shock jock". She had the same position on her lunchtime show. If someone said it was white in colour her ladyship would say it was black to prompt a discussion.

Case in point being the LC rubbish. She campaigned hard to get it switched to predicted/calculated grades, probably due to her LC child already having good grades. As soon as it was announced that predicted grades were going to be a thing she switched sides and started demanding that schools be reopened.

She cannot be taken seriously as she flip flops.

Also the whole Newstalk text us for 30c thing cannot be discounted. Revenue stream is very important.

ButtersSuki

DeanAustin wrote: »

Debate how wrong Kelly is all day long but it's insulting to her and to people who hold the same opinion to suggest that she is motivated purely by attention getting.

Play the ball, not the man.

You seem incapable of dealing with an opinion that doesn't agree with your own to the extent that you're accusing Ciara Kelly of expressing an opinion purely to get attention and accusing me of trolling.

Yes. I'd be the first and only person to cause Ciara kelly of being an attention seeker. That's sarcasm btw. With that in mind, are you attempting to suppress my opinion on this because you don't agree with it.....which is what you're accusing me of, no?

Also, re. your comment in bold - Ciara Kelly would take grave exception to the use of "man" in that sentence. Not even joking on that.

DeanAustin

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Yes. I'd be the first and only person to cause Ciara kelly of being an attention seeker. That's sarcasm btw. With that in mind, are you attempting to suppress my opinion on this because you don't agree with it.....which is what you're accusing me of, no?

Also, re. your comment in bold - Ciara Kelly would take grave exception to the use of "man" in that sentence. Not even joking on that.

I'm out.

You're obviously close to this and fair play for the work that you do. No point in continuing the conversation so we'll just agree to disagree.

ButtersSuki

Lol @ Ciara Kelly talking about Trump’s “dangerous rhetoric” and “making it all about himself” without a hint of irony.

Allinall

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Lol @ Ciara Kelly talking about Trump’s “dangerous rhetoric” and “making it all about himself” without a hint of irony.

How would one recognise (or not) a "hint of irony"?

ButtersSuki

Allinall wrote: »

How would one recognise (or not) a "hint of irony"?

What? Are you serious?

Ok, let me go the other way then - she’s fully aware of it. Happy now?

ButtersSuki

Shane, there’s a “h” in Seth, and there is no “t” in Michigan.

ButtersSuki

Coleman fawning over Bertie as usual and using the “Iar-Taoiseach” title. Ffs.

meeeeh

I think Newstalk will be happy to see that those who were going to switch the dial are still listening. Ciara Kelly must be doing great.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I think Newstalk will be happy to see that those who were going to switch the dial are still listening. Ciara Kelly must be doing great.

They have quiet the fanatic fan club on here 😀

Allinall

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Coleman fawning over Bertie as usual and using the “Iar-Taoiseach” title. Ffs.

Fawning eh?

How do you think he should have addressed him?

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I think Newstalk will be happy to see that those who were going to switch the dial are still listening. Ciara Kelly must be doing great.

No, I switched over to RTE1 now, much more balanced but still with a pro-Biden bias.

Great to see you back btw, you’ve (along with many other members of the Ciara Kelly Fan Club) been very quiet for some time.

Genuine question - do you agree with her anti-lockdown stance? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Also, it’s not just Ciara’s show. She co-hosts it with Shane Coleman.

ButtersSuki

Allinall wrote: »

Fawning eh?

How do you think he should have addressed him?

The clue was in the words “as usual”. Coleman is married into a prominent FF family. But you knew that, right?

Allinall

ButtersSuki wrote: »

The clue was in the words “as usual”. Coleman is married into a prominent FF family. But you knew that, right?

So no answer as to how he should have addressed him?

ButtersSuki

Allinall wrote: »

So no answer as to how he should have addressed him?

I’ve discussed this topic previously. If you want to read back on same feel free to. I’m not in the habit of repeating myself.

Do you know who the first Toaiseach to ask for this title and to be referred as such is btw?

Allinall

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I’ve discussed this topic previously. If you want to read back on same feel free to. I’m not in the habit of repeating myself.

Do you know who the first Toaiseach to ask for this title and to be referred as such is btw?

It's a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

Let me ask another.

What specifically made Shane Coleman's address "fawning"?

ButtersSuki

Allinall wrote: »

It's a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

Let me ask another.

What specifically made Shane Coleman's address "fawning"?

This is my last comment as I’m going into a meeting and if I didn’t reply immediately to any subsequent comment you make I’ll be accused of running away no doubt given previous on this thread. What makes him fawning is his style when interviewing Bertie, compared to - for example - his style when interviewing say, a Sinn Féin politician (and I’m not a SF supporter) to whom he is almost always confrontational. He just nods his head like a lapdog with Ahern and almost always throws in some comment about Ahern’s accomplishments whilst conveniently ignoring his “misdeeds”.

How about you answer my questions now?

Allinall

ButtersSuki wrote: »

This is my last comment as I’m going into a meeting and if I didn’t reply immediately to any subsequent comment you make I’ll be accused of running away no doubt given previous on this thread. What makes him fawning is his style when interviewing Bertie, compared to - for example - his style when interviewing say, a Sinn Féin politician (and I’m not a SF supporter) to whom he is almost always confrontational. He just nods his head like a lapdog with Ahern and almost always throws in some comment about Ahern’s accomplishments whilst conveniently ignoring his “misdeeds”.

How about you answer my questions now?

So nothing to do with him calling him “Iar-Taoiseach”.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

No, I switched over to RTE1 now, much more balanced but still with a pro-Biden bias.

Great to see you back btw, you’ve (along with many other members of the Ciara Kelly Fan Club) been very quiet for some time.

Genuine question - do you agree with her anti-lockdown stance? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Also, it’s not just Ciara’s show. She co-hosts it with Shane Coleman.

I think we will have to manage things better not to destroy the economy. Personally it was a lot easier to accept lockdown when I realised we won't need to lay off or use wage supports for 18 people. It's very easy to be lockdown cheerleader when your earnings or business are not affected.

Also I disagree we the fact early lockdown in Ireland was due to ICU capacity. They knew it would come anyway and decided it would be less harmful for businesses to lose November than December. As for ICU countries like Holland are flying patients to Germany, Slovenia (and I suspect quite a few countries around) postponed non emergency procedures. Whatever Irish capacity hospitals were nowhere near the tipping point when lockdown came in unlike most other countries.

Piehead

The libtards’ bitter tears of defeat are a joy

Banana Republic 1

Piehead wrote: »

The libtards’ bitter tears of defeat are a joy

Do you get a stipend for trolling or how does it work ?

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I think we will have to manage things better not to destroy the economy. Personally it was a lot easier to accept lockdown when I realised we won't need to lay off or use wage supports for 18 people. It's very easy to be lockdown cheerleader when your earnings or business are not affected.

Also I disagree we the fact early lockdown in Ireland was due to ICU capacity. They knew it would come anyway and decided it would be less harmful for businesses to lose November than December. As for ICU countries like Holland are flying patients to Germany, Slovenia (and I suspect quite a few countries around) postponed non emergency procedures. Whatever Irish capacity hospitals were nowhere near the tipping point when lockdown came in unlike most other countries.

I'm not a lockdown cheerleader. Thinking that it's the best and safest option based on facts is not cheerleading.

You can disagree on the ICU capacity issue if you like, but you're wrong. Sorry. It's not based on nmbers v other countries, it's based on our own particular set of circumstances.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm not a lockdown cheerleader. Thinking that it's the best and safest option based on facts is not cheerleading.

You can disagree on the ICU capacity issue if you like, but you're wrong. Sorry. It's not based on nmbers v other countries, it's based on our own particular set of circumstances.

And those are nowhere near as bad as on the continent neither they will be during this wave. What happens early next year is another question. Our capacity won't fill up or even near filling up this time. It would stupid to do to do such a strict lockdown when ICU numbers are relatively low and no near capacity if there were not other factors like economic hit of closing during December.

We all know what Irish ICU capacity is but even taking that into account Ireland acted way more conservatively than most of Europe. I don't know what exactly Ciara Kelly's position is because I only catch some parts of Breakfast but frankly you are no more of an authority on the issue than she is.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

And those are nowhere near as bad as on the continent neither they will be during this wave. What happens early next year is another question. Our capacity won't fill up or even near filling up this time. It would stupid to do to do such a strict lockdown when ICU numbers are relatively low and no near capacity if there were not other factors like economic hut of closing during December.

We all know what Irish ICU capacity is but even taking that into account Ireland acted way more conservatively than most of Europe. I don't know what exactly Ciara Kelly's position is because I only catch some parts of Breakfast but frankly you are no more of an authority on the issue than she is.

Lol, ok. Really? So now you know what I do? Ok. Cool story bro sis.

Not near capacity? Really? What are you basing this on? Is this on public only ICU beds, or public + private? You are aware I'm sure there's no deal in place for phase 2 for priavte ICU bed occupancy rifght? Whats' your solution to that?

ButtersSuki

Allinall

Still waiting for you to answer my questions btw.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Lol, ok. Really? So now you know what I do? Ok. Cool story bro sis.

Not near capacity? Really? What are you basing this on? Is this on public only ICU beds, or public + private? You are aware I'm sure there's no deal in place for phase 2 for priavte ICU bed occupancy rifght? Whats' your solution to that?

I'm aware about the capacity issues and about surge capacity which is up to 400 (there abouts). I'm also aware that deal will need to be done with private providers.

As for expertise I know you work in HSE but unless you want specify your role and expertise I have no reason to believe it is anything overly relevant. Data you are referring to is in public domain and available to everyone.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm aware about the capacity issues and about surge capacity which is up to 400 (there abouts). I'm also aware that deal will need to be done with private providers.

As for expertise I know you work in HSE but unless you want specify your role and expertise I have no reason to believe it is anything overly relevant. Data you are referring to is in public domain and available to everyone.

I'm not going to self-identify by giving my title, role and credentials, as that would mean having to surrender my anonymity.
And no, the data is not fully in the public domain - why would it be? Is that really how you think things work? You're incredibly naive if you think that.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm not going to self-identify by giving my title, role and credentials, as that would mean having to surrender my anonymity.
And no, the data is not fully in the public domain - why would it be? Is that really how you think things work? You're incredibly naive if you think that.

I said the data you are referring to. I did say all data but unless you can provide anything more than because I say so I think there is no reason to believe you have any special insight. I don't expect you to provide your title but you can't expect to be taken as an authority on the issue without some background information. You are just another poster on boards like everyone else.

MOD - please remember this is an anonymous radio discussion thread where nobody can be regarded as an "expert" on anything, whether they are in real life or otherwise. Also comments on posters' radio listening habits, presumed working practices etc is not permitted. Boards is mostly a place of anonymity unless occasionally someone chooses to identify themselves and can validate it. An example is on the Aviation forum, where a well-known world expert on aviation safety posts under his revealed identity when it comes to clarifying and validating important facts, as aviation professionals use that forum etc. This is merely a discussion on material on the wireless, so keep it chilled, please

southstar

The timing or the intervention is as uncanny as ever

Can we take it then that the posters position in the HSE is neither relevant to the debate ...nor contributes any special knowledge to it...so really need not have mentioned it in the first place..indeed could be as expert as the tea lady perhaps

ButtersSuki

southstar wrote: »

The timing or the intervention is as uncanny as ever

Can we take it then that the posters position in the HSE is neither relevant to the debate ...nor contributes any special knowledge to it...so really need not have mentioned it in the first place..indeed could be as expert as the tea lady perhaps

You got me! I'm the tea lady!

Not sure whose intervention you're referring to - I assume you mean the Mod's in this case, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Just on a point of clarity (though I know facts are optional for many/most of you), I did not at any time say I am a HSE employee, that was another poster. So I suggest you take that up with them as they "mentioned it in the first place", not me.

As to whether I've contributed any "special knowledge" or not, I'll let others decide that rather than you; others who have read the entirety of my postings on the subject across the various threads I've commented on this on since February last, rather than you who've joined the party very late and have contributed from what I can see precious little other than a dig at me today. Feel free to prove me wrong on this and show me how you've contributed to the debate - I'm all ears.

zerosugarbuzz

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm not a lockdown cheerleader. Thinking that it's the best and safest option based on facts is not cheerleading.

You can disagree on the ICU capacity issue if you like, but you're wrong. Sorry. It's not based on nmbers v other countries, it's based on our own particular set of circumstances.

You 110% are a lockdown cheerleader of the highest order. If you can’t see this you lack self awareness.

southstar

ButtersSuki wrote: »

You got me! I'm the tea lady!

Not sure whose intervention you're referring to - I assume you mean the Mod's in this case, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Just on a point of clarity (though I know facts are optional for many/most of you), I did not at any time say I am a HSE employee, that was another poster. So I suggest you take that up with them as they "mentioned it in the first place", not me.

As to whether I've contributed any "special knowledge" or not, I'll let others decide that rather than you; others who have read the entirety of my postings on the subject across the various threads I've commented on this on since February last, rather than you who've joined the party very late and have contributed from what I can see precious little other than a dig at me today. Feel free to prove me wrong on this and show me how you've contributed to the debate - I'm all ears.

You're all ears is right...well look one of your buddies in the hospital might fix that for ya.
By the way I don't generally disagree with your comments..however re Ciara Kelly ,an irritating character I'll agree ..you were attempting to characterize her views as almost criminally self serving.... totally consistent with it seems to me, with a slightly deranged ugly obsession youve harboured from the last thread.Thats my honest opinion..Incidentally I disagree with her views on lockdown..but that's not my quibble

ButtersSuki

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

You 110% are a lockdown cheerleader of the highest order. If you can’t see this you lack self awareness.

Fun fact, you can’t be 110%. #justsayin’

Leaving that aside, that’s your opinion that I’m a cheerleader. Just because I’m in favour of it doesn’t mean I’m cheerleading for it. Likewise, just because I take the time to debate the subject doesn’t mean I’m cheerleading for it.

Thanks for your post though. It contributed enormously to the debate.