Relaxation of Restrictions, Part III - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Is that your lame attempt of trying to intimidate me?
That’s actually quite pathetic on your part.

That picture was from Twitter & it was also in the Lockdown Ireland group on FB. Have a look yourself and I’m sure you’ll find it. I did make sure to confirm it’s legitimacy before posting though.

I’m sure the HSE will be delighted to hear that you’re threatening people on the internet with disciplinary proceedings on their behalf.

I didn't threaten you, old chum. Confirmed legitimaticy off Twitter. Outstanding stuff. Quite the Sherlock, aren't we?

By the way, seeming as you have all the answers. How does one cocoon if receiving active cancer treatment?

ceadaoin.

MadYaker wrote: »

Jaysus in the trump thread you’re saying everything will be grand. Which is it?

Can you put a number on how many deaths that will lead to? We have to base our actions on facts and statistics not feelings unfortunately.

Stop lying.. Im saying in the trump thread that the US isn't going to descend into civil war and won't be "finished" like some are saying (or hoping really). I didn't mention anything about the recession and mass unemployment that is obviously coming.

deisedevil

SusieBlue wrote: »

Most shops & services besides supermarkets weren’t deemed necessary on the 15th of March, when businesses started closing.
It made sense to close them because we didn’t see them as essential. But it’s now 9 weeks later and we need them now.

By August 10th, 21 weeks will have passed.
That’s 21 weeks, or over 5 months, that some people are going to be out of work and that we as a society are without a service that we previously relied upon.

Your going to die without homewares and the like are you? Do you understand what the word need really means? We need air, we need water, we need food. We don't need Tupperware boxes and pillow covers.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does a patient receiving active cancer treatment cocoon? Riddle me that one, breaker of CUH social media policy. That would a disciplinary matter for whoever leaked that screenshot. God forbid the EXIF data was identifiable off the phone that it was taken off. Terrible really.

wow. Creepy as ****. Its getting a bit weird in here tbh

growleaves

deisedevil wrote: »

Tis a shame we didn't just throw caution to the wind and see how we would get on so I suppose. I'm glad we didn't anyways. I'm delighted people of your mindset won't get your way.

The policy we copied off other European countries has no precedent so the claim that it is more cautious than e.g. Swedish strategy makes no sense. The caution in this case is assumed, and covid got into nursing homes and wreaked damage. We're involved in high-stakes gambling, only we're telling ourselves we're playing it safe. At the same time we're not so cautious that we'll close our borders or refuse to let in 189 Bulgarian seasonal workers.

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

You are saying the data gathered from multiple countries that associates economic recession with decreased mortality rates is wrong? Based on what?


Lockdown deaths remain at zero and will never cause any massive inccease in deaths that you have wrongly theorised, sorry that the facts don't fit your narrative. Recessions are terrible for a country, but you can omit the fake news about recessions causing huge deaths from your rants

That’s extremely ridiculous and messed up logic.
So less people die during a recession for several reasons. One of those is that many people flee the country and go to somewhere that is booming. Less people die because less people are working. For example, the roads are quieter and no accidents take place at work...

Overall though, life expectancy drops in a poorer country.

FintanMcluskey

deisedevil wrote: »

Tis a shame we didn't just throw caution to the wind and see how we would get on so I suppose. I'm glad we didn't anyways. I'm delighted people of your mindset won't get your way.

Thats a poor argument.

This isnt some extended holiday we are on. We are the most restrictive nation in Europe with up to 300k long term unemployed.
But your glad my "mindset" wont get its way. Ok

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't threaten you, old chum. Confirmed legitimaticy off Twitter. Outstanding stuff. Quite the Sherlock, aren't we?

By the way, seeming as you have all the answers. How does one cocoon if receiving active cancer treatment?

You know it’s legit, that’s why you just threatened me with talk of disciplinary procedures in the HSE lol.

I’m not entertaining it, attempting to intimidate someone for posting information freely found on the internet is beyond creepy and now you’re being condescending too, ‘old chum’.
I shouldn’t have to tell you that’s not cool, regardless of whether our opinions differ or not.

FintanMcluskey

deisedevil wrote: »

Your going to die without homewares and the like are you? Do you understand what the word need really means? We need air, we need water, we need food. We don't need Tupperware boxes and pillow covers.

I assume you are a skilled hunter and rely on none of the modern supports to sustain life.

Have you some sort of telekinesis to post on boards? I assume its not data or WIFI you are using

deisedevil

growleaves wrote: »

The policy we copied off other European countries has no precedent so the claim that it is more cautious than e.g. Swedish strategy makes no sense. The caution in this case is assumed, and covid got into nursing homes and wreaked damage. We're involved in high-stakes gambling, only we're telling ourselves we're playing it safe. At the same time we're not so cautious that we'll close our borders or refuse to let in 189 Bulgarian seasonal workers.

Yes and to my mind we weren't cautious enough at all and should have done more early on. People are banging on about Sweden. Who cares about Sweden, how about the countries that put in extreme restrictions as early as possible. Just look at what Taiwan did. Up on top of China and have a look at their response and results. That's what I would have wanted for this country.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

You know it’s legit, that’s why you just threatened me with talk of disciplinary procedures in the HSE lol.

I’m not entertaining it, attempting to intimidate someone for posting information freely found on the internet is beyond creepy and now you’re being condescending too, ‘old chum’.
I shouldn’t have to tell you that’s not cool, regardless of whether our opinions differ or not.

How does one cocoon whilst actively receiving chemo?

deisedevil

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I assume you are a skilled hunter and rely on none of the modern supports to sustain life.

Have you some sort of telekinesis to post on boards? I assume its not data or WIFI you are using

Your being over dramatic. We don't NEED most of the shops that are closed. I've been doing plenty of online buying and getting shopping delivered. Don't have to step inside the door of another building.

FintanMcluskey

deisedevil wrote: »

People are banging on about Sweden. Who cares about Sweden

What exactly does this mean?

You have no basis for argument so "who cares".

Whatever like I dont even care

deisedevil

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Thats a poor argument.

This isnt some extended holiday we are on. We are the most restrictive nation in Europe with up to 300k long term unemployed.
But your glad my "mindset" wont get its way. Ok

So what if we are. We've made better decisions than other countries in Europe in the past too. Who brought in smoking bans before any country in the world and we had the same kind of gobshítes who don't agree with the current restrictions crying over that too.

deisedevil

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What exactly does this mean?

You have no basis for argument so "who cares".

Whatever like I dont even care

Are you deliberately misunderstanding or was I just very unclear?

My point was that instead of focussing on Sweden why not look at countries that brought in extreme restrictions very early and look at where they are now. Go on. Tell me Sweden are managing better than Taiwan.

uli84

deisedevil wrote: »

Your going to die without homewares and the like are you? Do you understand what the word need really means? We need air, we need water, we need food. We don't need Tupperware boxes and pillow covers.

Well the situation is good enough to allow for not having to limit myself only to the stuff I need, “need” is a very subjective word by the way.

the “need” nonsense might have been acceptable a month ago

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does one cocoon whilst actively receiving chemo?

Not entertaining it, buddy. If you wanted to talk rationally, all you had to do was ask instead of doing what you did.

Presumably your next move will be to shoot down any and all suggestions I come up with, because you’re a doctor and you’re superior to me.
And you’ll use this as ammunition to belittle & dismiss other posts I’ve previously made on the topic.
I’m not playing your game, I don’t engage with nasty underhanded tactics like that.

wakka12

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s extremely ridiculous and messed up logic.
So less people die during a recession for several reasons. One of those is that many people flee the country and go to somewhere that is booming. Less people die because less people are working. For example, the roads are quieter and no accidents take place at work...

Overall though, life expectancy drops in a poorer country.

It's not my logic , it's what several studies determined . Population continued to grow throughout the Great Recession in the USA where the study is mostly focused on so I don't see how emigration (which had no net loss effect )would lower it unless a sick person is more likely to emigrate for some unknown reason. So yes it drops, as I said it can now be omitted from the scare mongering tactics as it is untrue

ceadaoin.

deisedevil wrote: »

Your being over dramatic. We don't NEED most of the shops that are closed. I've been doing plenty of online buying and getting shopping delivered. Don't have to step inside the door of another building.

Yeah but are you going to die without ordering stuff online? Youre happy to put others at risk to get your deliveries . If you aren't just ordering the bare minimum needed to survive then shame on you. After all, all we need is air, water and food right? Isn't that what you said? Tut tut.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not entertaining it, buddy. If you wanted to talk rationally, all you had to do was ask instead of doing what you did.

Presumably your next move will be to shoot down any and all suggestions I come up with, because you’re a doctor and you’re superior to me.
And you’ll use this as ammunition to belittle & dismiss other posts I’ve previously made on the topic.
I’m not playing your game, I don’t engage with nasty underhanded tactics like that.

I'm not a doctor but am offering a likely scenario. How would this patient be dealt with or do we just leave them to the wolves? Forgive my earlier baited message.

bettyoleary

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Well the alternative is cocoon everyone until the end of time

It feels like that at the moment. But, I suppose we will just have to try and get the r rate as low as we can by following the plan and hope that it will get there quicker than the dates set and we can ease restrictions accordingly. Then I think people will just have to do a self risk assessment and act to protect themselves and their families as best they can whilst continuing on. But, I really think we will have a vaccine sooner rather than later. If not treatments will improve the more we learn about the virus. It seems like a lifetime since March but its only been 8 weeks.

deisedevil

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but are you going to die without ordering stuff online? Youre happy to put others at risk to get your deliveries . If you aren't just ordering the bare minimum needed to survive then shame on you. Tut tut.

There's far less risk ordering from a warehouse than letting people loose in clothes and homewares shops etc. That's the whole point.

ceadaoin.

deisedevil wrote: »

There's far less risk ordering from a warehouse than letting people loose in clothes and homewares shops etc. That's the whole point.

Less risk for you you mean.

Have they recommended masks yet? That will make things a whole lot safer and allow some normality to resume, when it comes to shops opening at least.

growleaves

deisedevil wrote: »

Yes and to my mind we weren't cautious enough at all and should have done more early on. People are banging on about Sweden. Who cares about Sweden, how about the countries that put in extreme restrictions as early as possible. Just look at what Taiwan did. Up on top of China and have a look at their response and results. That's what I would have wanted for this country.

I see. Yes I think Taiwan was an interesting case study of success.

People forget or don't realise that there are historical precedents for dealing with pandemics. Taiwan did what countries have done for over 1000 years - shut borders, quarantine the sick and other measures.

We kept our borders open, sent the sick to mingle in nursing homes and went with a bunch of new, made-up containment measures which are defended now as if they are deeply-held religious convictions.

Positivism and science-worship mean people look to studies from 5 minutes ago (in historical time) for guidance, as if we're starting from a baseline of ignorance.

I thought the way in which the Oxford University's Infectious Diseases Lab report was rubbished by the media, and how that was lapped up by the mass of people, showed the commitment to "science" is superficial anyway.

Then also the blithe acceptance of dodgy statistics, followed by the claim that "models aren't even supposed to be accurate" (false)

deisedevil

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Less risk for you you mean.

Have they recommended masks yet? That will make things a whole lot safer and allow some normality to resume, when it comes to shops opening at least.

Nope. Far less risk for more than just me. Have another think about it. It's an easy one to figure out. You'll get there.

Iamabeliever

deisedevil wrote: »

Your going to die without homewares and the like are you? Do you understand what the word need really means? We need air, we need water, we need food. We don't need Tupperware boxes and pillow covers.

Pretty sure you won't live or die without construction

deisedevil

Iamabeliever wrote: »

Pretty sure you won't live or die without construction

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?

Speakerboxx

Surely we can get rid of Tony after Monday?

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

It's not my logic , it's what several studies determined . Population continued to grow throughout the Great Recession in the USA where the study is mostly focused on so I don't see how emigration (which had no net loss effect )would lower it unless a sick person is more likely to emigrate for some unknown reason. So yes it drops, as I said it can now be omitted from the scare mongering tactics as it is untrue

My point was that the recession will kill more people in Ireland than Covid has. Covid has currently killed 1500 in Ireland. A recession will very easily surpass that.

The studies that you are referring to are comparing a country in good times and a country in bad times. (Not just focusing on any 1 illness)

Of course it’s possible that less people would die during a recession as a result of less people working. That leads to less road deaths, less workplace accidents etc. Also, population tends to increase in countries in good time’s. A higher population will naturally mean more deaths. People leave countries during recession, which leads to less deaths. It’s extremely flawed logic to try take anything away from that.

Overall, richer countries have higher life expectancy. So it’s better to avoid recession.

Either way, none of it is relevant to my point. The recession will easily kill more than 1500 in Ireland.

FintanMcluskey

deisedevil wrote: »

There's far less risk ordering from a warehouse than letting people loose in clothes and homewares shops etc. That's the whole point.

Inactivity is dangerous