People who want "Foreva Lockdown"

FintanMcluskey

khalessi wrote: »

The fact that masks were worn during the spanish flu of 1918 etc and people kept away from each other and we were not still doing that would indicate they arent forever

Are you of the thought that everyone with a positive Covid test is a victim?

Arghus

I didn't realise at first when I clicked into the thread that I was actually going to see a "Relaxation of Restrictions thread " tribute going on - complete with original band members.

It was nostalgic, in a way, to hear some of the old hits:

"Lockdown forever"
"Curtin twitchers"
"Only a flu"

It was cool to see the deep cut of "social distancing will extinguish the human race" - one for the real fans there.

I thought we might get a blast of "Michael Levitt sez (he's won a Nobel prize)" but, much in the same way that Radiohead don't play Creep anymore, that one has fallen out of rotation as of late - bit gauche I suppose.

Something familiar about hearing those tunes again, but they remind me of an earlier time, but, fck it, life is really too short.

khalessi

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Are you of the thought that everyone with a positive Covid test is a victim?

No are you?

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

That would be my thoughts too Khalessi.

That doesn't suit some of the conspiracy theorists though.

Yourself and that Khalessi lad aren't exactly the oracle of knowledge.

In face Khalessi suggested every Covid positive test was a victim earlier.

Despite most being at work, shocked at a postive result

khalessi

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Yourself and that Khalessi lad aren't exactly the oracle of knowledge.

In face Khalessi suggested every Covid positive test was a victim earlier.

Despite most being at work, shocked at a postive result

No I didnt but thank you.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Yourself and that Khalessi lad aren't exactly the oracle of knowledge.

You're most welcome to refute any of my points where you're able.

growleaves

It was cool to see the deep cut of "social distancing will extinguish the human race" - one for the real fans there.

It is true though as a logical proposition. No family formation for as long as human beings are forcibly separated. More to the point even three years of restrictions will condemn many women to see their chance of having children cruelly evaporate.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

You're most welcome to refute any of my points where you're able.

You haven't made a single point tonight and backed it up?

That's why I'm here, your an easy target for argument.

Graham

growleaves wrote: »

It is true though as a logical proposition. No family formation for as long as human beings are forcibly separated. More to the point even three years of restrictions will condemn many women to see their chance of having children cruelly evaporate.

There was an article linked in the previous thread which you must have missed.

The gist of it was mask on, doggy style.

Problem solved

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Well that's a hard question to answer. It can't just be answered with a simple yes or no.

What's the context? How prevalent is it going to be? Will it be circulating in high or low numbers? What will our level of understanding be of the virus relative to today: will we have better treatments or a better understanding of how it is spread, of how to protect yourself? A better understanding of personal risk - the list of unknown variables goes on and on and on. Will there still be the same level even type of restrictions or will they have changed over time to reflect new developments or knowledge? I don't expect us to be in exactly the same situation regarding knowledge of the disease or even methods to combat it in five years.

I can't just blindly tell you today I'll accept restrictions in five years time, a lot will certainly change in five years and my attitude will be shaped by what happens in that intervening period.

Restrictions for 5 years is insanity regardless of the disease.

If the answer is not a very clear NO, then it may as well be yes.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Restrictions for 5 years is insanity regardless of the disease.

Good job it's not something anyone realistically expects (conspiracy theorists aside).

Arghus

growleaves wrote: »

It is true though as a logical proposition. No family formation for as long as human beings are forcibly separated. More to the point even three years of restrictions will condemn many women to see their chance of having children cruelly evaporate.

Yeah sure, but it's also an example of an logical extreme and if you think a likely outcome is the eventual destruction of the human race.... I can't believe I'm engaging in this ridiculous argument.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

Restrictions for 5 years is insanity regardless of the disease.

If the answer is not a very clear NO, then it may as well be yes.

But your the one who is talking about restrictions for five years for some reason - no one else is. Why are you talking about restrictions for five years?


How can I give a clear answer to what I would do in a situation many years in the future, which I currently know nothing about?

growleaves

Arghus wrote: »

Yeah sure, but it's also an example of an logical extreme and if you think a likely outcome is the eventual destruction of the human race.... I can't believe I'm engaging in this ridiculous argument.

I think my point in originally saying that was just to demonstrate that socially distancing is intrinsically anti-human, not that I think the human race is actually going to die out.

The longer it goes on, the more damaging to psychiatric health as well.

These containment methods are of dubious ethical validity to begin with, so it isn't just a question of what virologists think of them.

Graham

It's unethical and anti-human to try and limit the spread of a potentially deadly communicable disease?

That's an interesting philosophical viewpoint.

Arghus

growleaves wrote: »

I think my point in originally saying that was just to demonstrate that socially distancing is intrinsically anti-human, not that I think the human race is actually going to die out.

The longer it goes on, the more damaging to psychiatric health as well.

These containment methods are of dubious ethical validity to begin with, so it isn't just a question of what virologists think of them.

Yes, social distancing goes against human nature - that's why it's difficult and nobody likes it and hopes it doesn't go on forever. But it isn't been done just for the craic.

growleaves

Graham wrote: »

It's unethical and anti-human to try and limit the spread of a potentially deadly communicable disease?

That's an interesting philosophical viewpoint.

Last I checked most philosophers are not consequentalists - i.e. believing that the morality of an action is determined by its aim - so just the fact that you're trying to save lives doesn't mean whatever you do is justified.

growleaves

I'm off now. Thanks for discussion.

Micky 32

Arghus wrote: »

hopes it doesn't go on forever.

So you’re thinking it might go on forever ?

begbysback

It’s locking up some people on here need, not locking down.

Arghus

Micky 32 wrote: »

So you’re thinking it might go on forever ?

No.

Micky 32

Arghus wrote: »

No.

Very good.

joseywhales

What is this lockdown you are all on about my circle are doing 90% of their usual activities. Lockdown is a bad description of what this is

Micky 32

Micky 32 wrote: »

So you’re thinking it might go on forever ?

This is exactly where lockdown forever comes from.

People that are pro restrictions that can’t say they wouldn’t follow restrictions for years to come and say things like they “hope” social distancing doesn’t last forever. Which obviously implies they think it might last forever.

Antares35

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Also a load from a certain sector working from home on full pay.

Not doing a lot of work.

Suits a lot of people.

Hasn't productivity increased with the advent of so many people WFH?

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

People that are pro restrictions that can’t say they wouldn’t follow restrictions for years to come

because nobody expects that to happen.

Nobody has any reason to expect that to happen.

You can't come up with anything to suggest it's going to happen.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

This is exactly where lockdown forever comes from.

People that are pro restrictions that can’t say they wouldn’t follow restrictions for years to come and say things like they “hope” social distancing doesn’t last forever. Which obviously implies they think it might last forever.

This is a bizarrely literal interpretation: semantics taken to the point of ridiculousness.

It's a turn of phrase - it doesn't literally mean that something will go on forever.

"This film is going on forever"

"Let's hope this meeting doesn't go on forever"


Saying it doesn't mean that you think literally that something could potentially go on until the eventual heat death of the Universe.

Wanderer78

Double O Seven wrote:

I think it would be interesting to discuss the psychology of these people, I wouldn't mind if they were genuinely worried about the virus and the health service but it seems to me that these people are long-term unemployed who have hardly left the house since they did their leaving cert in 1999, so for the first time in their lives they felt normal during lockdown.Then you have the Justin Barrett type fans who want to "close the boarders" not because they want to stop the virus coming in but because they hate all foreigners.

Many of these individuals would have complex psychological disorders that would manifest as complex anxiety disorders, leading to behavioural patterns such as catastrophisation

Nermal

Obviously no-one sane wants a 'Foreva Lockdown'.

But it's the logical consequence of statements repeatedly made on this forum to the effect that health is an absolute priority over economic activity.

Graham

Nermal wrote: »

it's the logical consequence of statements repeatedly made on this forum to the effect that health is an absolute priority over economic activity.

Only if its logical that a pandemic never ends, (it's not).