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

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Completely.

An easily identifable group of citizen's are vulnerable to Covid.

Outside of that the hysterical nonsence needs to stop.

Identify this group.

Loafing Oaf

polesheep wrote: »

Indeed. And this was known right from the start, but suggesting restrictions around this group only was greeted with outrage.

You can't just seal off everyone over 65 in a glass bubble like Deckard's daughter


Large numbers of elderly live with children/grandchildren. How are they supposed to be protected if the rest of the household is going about their normal business and likely contracting the virus

fr336

Good luck isolating the over 65s when the kids want them for babysitting duty

is_that_so

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I was making the point many people are strongly opinionated on things with little evidence or understanding.

Try and keep up

Oh, I'm caught up thanks. You're a fan of Sweden's "correct" approach, not at all of what we did and some people you know who are angry about the Apple decision somehow makes a "good" point here.

namloc1980

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

In fairness if 1,700 people died on our roads in the space of 3 or 4 months, it would certainly be time to panic.

Penfailed

facehugger99 wrote: »

1.35 million die every year in road accidents.

It's a wonder the hysteria brigade ever leave their houses.

I'm beginning to suspect many of them don't.

Can you catch a potentially fatal virus from a car crash? No. You're not comparing like with like.

Penfailed

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Luckily we have one European country that performed quite well with no lockdown.

Of course they had a lockdown, or so you said when the numbers didnt correlate to that part of your argument.

Then Charlie said they had a lockdown and excess deaths while trying to prove a point that lockdowns prevent excess deaths.

I honestly think drinking heavily on a Wednesday afternoon isnt the answer

That's some twisting of what was actually said right there ^^^

Arghus

Penfailed wrote: »

That's some twisting of what was actually said right there ^^^

Nothing new there!

polesheep

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You can't just seal off everyone over 65 in a glass bubble like Deckard's daughter


Large numbers of elderly live with children/grandchildren. How are they supposed to be protected if the rest of the household is going about their normal business and likely contracting the virus

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals. What we are doing today is what we should have done at the start. And eased things from that point. The nursing/care homes were the real disaster in this pandemic.

Arghus

polesheep wrote: »

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals. What we are doing today is what we should have done at the start. And eased things from that point. The nursing/care homes were the real disaster in this pandemic.

Yes, but that's because the measures we took were effective in stopping the spread of the disease in the wider community.

We should have been doing this at the start? With thousands of active cases in the country. What do you think the outcome would have been then?

Loafing Oaf

polesheep wrote: »

But most people are mostly going about their normal business now and we aren't seeing elderly in the hospitals.

But that's because transmission has been largely suppressed in the community as a whole, not primarily because of measures specifically designed to protect the elderly. And it remains to be seen whether this will hold true when 'normal business' resumes fully in the realms of schools, pubs, foreign travel etc.

bucketybuck

Another day without a covid death.

Government officials are reported to be "very concerned".

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re making it up as yous go now folks. At least pick and argument and stick with it.

Unbelievable stuff.

Sweden have imposed restrictions but still have excess death's!

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Unbelievable stuff.

Sweden have imposed restrictions but still have excess death's!

The way in which you misinterpret certain points and fail to answer other direct questions feels very deliberate Fintan.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

The way in which you misinterpret certain points and fail to answer other direct questions feels very deliberate Fintan.

Not at all deliberate.

The figures dont add up.

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to, Im just looking for quantifible data that shows a distinct correlation between restrictions and a low death rate.

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Not at all deliberate.

The figures dont add up.

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to, Im just looking for quantifible data that shows a distinct correlation between restrictions and a low death rate.

How do you explain away the resurgence of cases in the United States once restrictions were eased.

Interesting how you seem very fond to talk about Sweden, but seem very reluctant to talk about the US.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We know Covid is dangerous, we know who its dangerous to

Overweight people of all ages. That's a lot of people. Not to mention those with underlying conditions of all ages - even basic things. Then there's discarding all the over 65s as if they're all on the edge of death already. The exact same arguments you're going through now are those put forward in March - "Let's not have a lockdown, we know who it affects let's just protect them" without thinking (or caring) of the practicalities.

FintanMcluskey

fr336 wrote: »

Overweight people of all ages. That's a lot of people. Not to mention those with underlying conditions of all ages - even basic things. Then there's discarding all the over 65s as if they're all on the edge of death already. The exact same arguments you're going through now are those put forward in March - "Let's not have a lockdown, we know who it affects let's just protect them" without thinking (or caring) of the practicalities.

One positive thing about Covid is regarding obesity. Hopefully the porky people out there will realise the importance of exercise and healthy eating.

It could inadvertently lower the mortality rate from a plethora of other causes

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

Until we have a vaccine, this is what we need to do to keep each other safe. People throughout history have had periods where they have had to suffer, many to a much greater degree than this. It'll end when we have good treatments and vaccines, both of which are currently on track for delivery by next year.

I agree with this. I'm talking about the potential scenario in which no such vaccine materialises, which we have repeatedly warned is a real possibility. In that scenario, my point remains - this way of 'living' cannot continue forever. The vast majority of people will not accept long term social isolation of this kind.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

One positive thing about Covid is regarding obesity. Hopefully the porky people out there will realise the importance of exercise and healthy eating.

It could inadvertently lower the mortality rate from a plethora of other causes

"Porky" That's not very nice is it. You can be overweight by just a bit - does that make you worse than those people who stuff their faces and are just within the "not overweight" catergory. Also I would say most seriously overweight people are eating for comfort, often put down by others throughout their life. Then you get trim people who stuff their faces but because of their genes they don't really put on weight. Then they have the cheek to criticise overweight people..

FintanMcluskey

fr336 wrote: »

"Porky" That's not very nice is it. You can be overweight by just a bit - does that make you worse than those people who stuff their faces and are just within the "not overweight" catergory. Also I would say most seriously overweight people are eating for comfort, often put down by others throughout their life. Then you get trim people who stuff their faces but because of their genes they don't really put on weight. Then they have the cheek to criticise overweight people..

This right here is the issue.

Completely in favour of restricting the nation, but not in favour of people becoming motivated to help themselves.

Luckily the cure for obesity is free for us all.

Its to easy to say lock everyone else up.

Loafing Oaf

While we're on the subject, Boris Johnson's decision to launch an anti-obesity drive suggests he blames his mild chubbiness, rather than just random bad luck, for getting into such serious bother with the virus. Is he likely to be right about this? I mean this is a guy who was pretty physically active and in perfect health otherwise, AFAIK. If so, there's a lot more of us want to be making damn sure we don't get the virus.:eek:

Arghus

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

fr336

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This right here is the issue.

Completely in favour of restricting the nation, but not in favour of people becoming motivated to help themselves.

Luckily the cure for obesity is free for us all.

Its to easy to say lock everyone else up.

Who is being locked up??? And where do you draw the line? If it affected people who were younger than you, would that be okay?

fr336

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

While we're on the subject, Boris Johnson's decision to launch an anti-obesity drive suggests he blames his mild chubbiness, rather than just random bad luck, for getting into such serious bother with the virus. Is he likely to be right about this? I mean this is a guy who was pretty physically active and in perfect health otherwise, AFAIK. If so, there's a lot more of us want to be making damn sure we don't get the virus.:eek:

That's true, actually. The anti fatty people would probably call BoJo porky, but he wasn't what I would call hugely overweight. And he had a very active job. At the peak of this in the UK all sorts of people were being hospitalised.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

I need to research it first, which I will do when I get a minute.

Im not going to waffle illiterate jabber about a subject like many on this thread appear to

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Can't help but notice that you've completely avoided explaining away the situation in the United States Fintan.

What’s to explain?
Crazy leader, crazy people.
They can’t see how people having guns leads to gun deaths.
Serious obesity problems. They go around on fat mobiles in Walmart.

I could go on and on. America are a special case.

If oil was up for grabs, they might try harder.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s to explain?
Crazy leader, crazy people.
They can’t see how people having guns leads to gun deaths.
Serious obesity problems. They go around on fat mobiles in Walmart.

I could go on and on. America are a special case.

If oil was up for grabs, they might try harder.

Okay, that's a great dissection of America's many societal ills.

But what relevance has that got in relation to rising case numbers and deaths in the states once they eased their restrictions too quickly?

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, that's a great dissection of America's many societal ills.

But what relevance has that got in relation to rising case numbers and deaths in the states once they eased their restrictions too quickly?

What states are you referring to?

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

What states are you referring to?

Now, now. Don't try to derail the conversation. You know, or at least you should know, where I'm referring too.