Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!
Options
Comments
-
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel there. There are literally billions of people under various levels of quarantine, rules, etc so incidents like this are going to happen.
What does it prove other than sometimes people are going to sometimes fall foul of the rules/bad bureaucracy?
Or every time there is a delay to a lockdown measure lifted, or confusion over rules or someone gets wrongly fined, can we expect that to be used as sort of "sign" that we will be living in a dystopian end-times shortly?
Spoken like a true apparatchik. There’s a lot more “bad bureaucracy” in store for the world. You can be sure of that.0 -
Yes. I will. So will most other people who have seen you lying and run away when your claims are questioned and challenged.You can conclude what you like.
And here is an example of your lies.Btw I haven’t ran away from any of your pitiful arguments but I note you ran away from the numerous anti lockdown studies I posted.
You have run away from my points. I directly addressed you studies, particularly how they don't actually say what you claim they do.
None of the studies you posted agree with your claim that lockdowns are ineffective in slowing the spread of the virus.
You have not addressed this point, you simply got upset, threw out insults and of course ran away.
Not sure why you're trying to lie about this again now.0 -
Yes. I will. So will most other people who have seen you lying and run away when your claims are questioned and challenged.
And here is an example of your lies.
You have run away from my points. I directly addressed you studies, particularly how they don't actually say what you claim they do.
None of the studies you posted agree with your claim that lockdowns are ineffective in slowing the spread of the virus.
You have not addressed this point, you simply got upset, threw out insults and of course ran away.
Not sure why you're trying to lie about this again now.
You did not address the studies. You ignored their conclusions.
Remind me again how my position has no evidence to support it?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484
“no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs (more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions) on case growth in any country.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395
“Lockdowns were not associated with reduced mortality in any studies apart from modelling studies.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395
“no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.”
http://ssbhalla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lockdowns-Closures-vs.-COVID19-Covid-Wins-Nov-4.pdf
“We find robust results for the opposite conclusion: later lockdowns performed better, and less stringent lockdowns achieved better outcomes,”
There are many more out there. You are the one with their head in the sand.0 -
-
But I didn't ignore their conclusions. In fact I quoted several to you that directly contradicted your claims about the studies. For example, you ignored this post entirely.You did not address the studies. You ignored their conclusions.
Remind me again how my position has no evidence to support it?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116695905&postcount=3001
In addition I pointed out a bunch of other issues that arise from your contradictory conspiracy position:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116716759&postcount=3120
Specifically these points:
You have not addressed this points, you just resorted to silly insults and than ran away.Remember also that you have claimed that covid isn't real and is just the flu in disguise.
None of your studies agree with this claim and would be completely invalid if your claim was true. You are selectively ignoring this.
You also claimed that the big shadowy cabal behind the conspiracy are suppressing any scientists or studies that disagree with their supposed narrative.
Yet you are also claiming there are tons of studies that do this and all the data released contradicts the "official narrative".
Again you've selectively ignored this contradiction.
You missed the first part of that quote:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484
“no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs (more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions) on case growth in any country.”Results: Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that im-plemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a nonsignificant effect).
And:Conclusions: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less- restrictive interventions.
So this study does not say that "Lockdowns don't work" nor does it say "Lockdowns do not reduce the spread of the virus."
You are lying about it's conclusion.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395
“Lockdowns were not associated with reduced mortality in any studies apart from modelling studies.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395
“no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.”
And again, you leave out a quote:
Again, the study specifically disagrees with your claim that lockdowns don't stop the spread of the virus.Studies at the economic level of analysis points to the possibility that deaths associated with economic harms or underfunding of other health issues may outweigh the deaths that lockdowns save,
You are once again, lying here.
Your own quote here disagrees with your position.http://ssbhalla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lockdowns-Closures-vs.-COVID19-Covid-Wins-Nov-4.pdf
“We find robust results for the opposite conclusion: later lockdowns performed better, and less stringent lockdowns achieved better outcomes,”
It directly states that lockdowns are effective in slowing the spread of the virus.
Yes, I'm sure there are tons of studies out there you can take out of context and misrepresent.There are many more out there. You are the one with their head in the sand.
Rather than this, please just show one that states unambiguously:
"Lockdowns are not effective is slowing the spread of the virus."
Also, could you provide the studies that show that the corona virus is just actual the flu?
It's not an appeal to anything. I'm just pointing out that your tactics of ignoring, running away and resorting to insults when you can't address points is very transparent to most people.Love the appeal to groupthink here. You’re a bad joke.0 -
Advertisement
-
You can conclude what you like. You should know the mods have warned me I will be banned if I engage with you. Curious behaviour for a so called conspiracy theory forum. Then again not so strange when you consider YouTube deleted testimony from doctors in the US senate because it doesn’t fit the narrative and the WSJ published it and...nobody cares. Brave new world.
Btw I haven’t ran away from any of your pitiful arguments but I note you ran away from the numerous anti lockdown studies I posted.
Mod
Eh, no I didnt. I warned you about HOW you engage.
0 -
-
-
But I didn't ignore their conclusions. In fact I quoted several to you that directly contradicted your claims about the studies. For example, you ignored this post entirely.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116695905&postcount=3001
In addition I pointed out a bunch of other issues that arise from your contradictory conspiracy position:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116716759&postcount=3120
Specifically these points:
You have not addressed this points, you just resorted to silly insults and than ran away.
You missed the first part of that quote:
And:
So this study does not say that "Lockdowns don't work" nor does it say "Lockdowns do not reduce the spread of the virus."
You are lying about it's conclusion.
And again, you leave out a quote:
Again, the study specifically disagrees with your claim that lockdowns don't stop the spread of the virus.
You are once again, lying here.
Your own quote here disagrees with your position.
It directly states that lockdowns are effective in slowing the spread of the virus.
Yes, I'm sure there are tons of studies out there you can take out of context and misrepresent.
Rather than this, please just show one that states unambiguously:
"Lockdowns are not effective is slowing the spread of the virus."
Also, could you provide the studies that show that the corona virus is just actual the flu?
It's not an appeal to anything. I'm just pointing out that your tactics of ignoring, running away and resorting to insults when you can't address points is very transparent to most people.
How have I ran away? I do have a life to attend to but I’m still here and the studies I show strongly indicate that lockdowns are ineffective or do not stack up to any balanced cost benefit analysis. In each of the studies they writers are appealing to stop relying on blanket lockdown like the one we endure in Ireland.
Here’s another study about whether or not the covid is a type of flu. I didn’t actually say that but let’s just look at the data. I think the way you ignored the previous studies on the inefficiency of lockdowns shows me you are a dishonest poster anyway.
The median IFR is 0.23%. For the under 70s it is 0.05%. So yeah for the under 70s it’s about as bad as a normal flu. For the over 70s it’s twice as bad.
Reported case fatality rates, like the oft quoted official fatality rate of 3.4% from the WHO are meaningless.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3.full.pdf0 -
How have I ran away? I do have a life to attend to but I’m still here and the studies I show strongly indicate that lockdowns are ineffective or do not stack up to any balanced cost benefit analysis. In each of the studies they writers are appealing to stop relying on blanket lockdown like the one we endure in Ireland.
Here’s another study about whether or not the covid is a type of flu. I didn’t actually say that but let’s just look at the data. I think the way you ignored the previous studies on the inefficiency of lockdowns shows me you are a dishonest poster anyway.
The median IFR is 0.23%. For the under 70s it is 0.05%. So yeah for the under 70s it’s about as bad as a normal flu. For the over 70s it’s twice as bad.
Reported case fatality rates, like the oft quoted official fatality rate of 3.4% from the WHO are meaningless.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3.full.pdf
Same guy who said this a year ago
"a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths."0 -
Advertisement
-
Furthermore you are not going to get a study that unambiguously states lockdowns do not work but there’s enough evidence in the studies that I have provided to show us that it was a bad strategy with costs that far outweigh the benefits.
You are being so disingenuous. Like you are quoting “ While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less- restrictive interventions.” As saying that lockdowns work. That is a joke.0 -
Same guy who said this a year ago
"a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths."
Can you refute the paper or are you happy to just engage in smearing by selectively quoting as above.0 -
Can you refute the paper or are you happy to just engage in smearing by selectively quoting as above.
You refered to Sweden and Japan earlier but what are your thoughts on Brazil?
President has opposed lockdown by and large, and the health system is now close to collapse.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/05/973822851/brazil-in-crisis-it-feels-like-you-are-in-stalingrad-in-world-war-ii
Also, Tegnell in Sweden has admitted they should have done more in hindsight:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-529037170 -
-
But not actually answering any of the my points, which you still haven't, and attempting to move on in the discussion as if I've never posted those points.How have I ran away? I do have a life to attend to but
Specifically you have yet to address where I pointed out that you were directly lying about the contents of studies.
You have not addressed the contradiction your position entails that if the coronavirus is actually just a flu virus, then none of your studies would be valid.
You have also not addressed the contradiction resulting from your claim that scientists and studies that disagree with the secret global cabal's plan are being suppressed. If that's the case how can the studies you're pointing to exist? How can they be valid? How do you know they aren't part of the conspiracy?
And none of them state that lockdowns don't reduce the spread of the virus.I’m still here and the studies I show strongly indicate that lockdowns are ineffective or do not stack up to any balanced cost benefit analysis. In each of the studies they writers are appealing to stop relying on blanket lockdown like the one we endure in Ireland.
Almost all of them state that they do.
This is the point you keep ignoring because you can't address it.
You did say this. You are now once again lying.Here’s another study about whether or not the covid is a type of flu. I didn’t actually say that but let’s just look at the data.
You keep telling us "the flu has disappeared". This is obviously implying that the coronavirus is just the flu that a global conspiracy is misidentifying.
If this is not what you are implying, you've had ample time and opportunity to clarify what you are trying to say. We've also asked you repeatedly to clarify, but of course you ignored this also.
And this study does not say the coronavirus is a flu.
Flus are not defined by how lethal they are or aren't.
Flus viruses are not coronaviruses. Covid 19 is not a flu virus.0 -
-
Furthermore you are not going to get a study that unambiguously states lockdowns do not work
The virus spreads via close contact. People mingling in an office or a bar or a restaurant is more likely to spread the virus than if those places are shut down (lockdown)
You don't need your odd interpretations of selective studies to understand that concept. Children can understand it. The amount of mental gymnastics being performed here never ceases to amaze.0 -
How have I ran away? I do have a life to attend to but I’m still here and the studies I show strongly indicate that lockdowns are ineffective or do not stack up to any balanced cost benefit analysis. In each of the studies they writers are appealing to stop relying on blanket lockdown like the one we endure in Ireland.
Here’s another study about whether or not the covid is a type of flu. I didn’t actually say that but let’s just look at the data. I think the way you ignored the previous studies on the inefficiency of lockdowns shows me you are a dishonest poster anyway.
The median IFR is 0.23%. For the under 70s it is 0.05%. So yeah for the under 70s it’s about as bad as a normal flu. For the over 70s it’s twice as bad.
Reported case fatality rates, like the oft quoted official fatality rate of 3.4% from the WHO are meaningless.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3.full.pdf
We all want good information, so that we can make good decisions about all this.
I don't have much time but here are the results from some quick searching:
1) A link to the study you linked to above, however this is a web page, not a PDF.
Read what a commenter says at the bottom (he gives 7 flaws in the study that he says "render it's IFR estimate unreliable:")
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3
2) A paper showing flaws in various studies of IFR
https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/28/2/taaa239/6062388
So, just because a study makes some claims, these need to be verified.
3) A study from the US National Library of Medicine from Dec 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
Some quotes from that study
"The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85"
So they say that that IFR at 55 = 0.4%, and at 65 = 1.4%
You quoted your study as saying IFR under 70 is 0.05%
There is a very big difference, perhaps got by averaging all under 70's.
However it's very misleading if 0.4% of 55 year olds may die, and 1.4% of 65 year olds!!
That study also goes on to say ...
"These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza."
If you are concerned about the truth, rather selectively quoting studies, then take a look at the totality of what's out there, and make a realistic assessment of what the facts are!!0 -
Thought of the day. I was born in 1960. Whilst pregnant my mother suffered morning sickness.. she was proscribed Thalidomide which was regarded safe by medical experts. My father thought otherwise and flushed it down the toilet. Who was right, my father or the experts?0
-
Thought of the day. I was born in 1960. Whilst pregnant my mother suffered morning sickness.. she was proscribed Thalidomide which was regarded safe by medical experts. My father thought otherwise and flushed it down the toilet. Who was right, my father or the experts?
Out of the millions of safe products sold over the counter your father happened to discard one of the infamous products that was later discovered to be dangerous for pregnant women. Unless he was a chemist/doctor/expert with alternative information it was blind luck more than anything.0 -
Advertisement
-
Out of the millions of safe products sold over the counter your father happened to discard one of the infamous products that was later discovered to be dangerous for pregnant women. Unless he was a chemist/doctor/expert with alternative information it was blind luck more than anything.
My point is the experts and scientists passed the drug as safe, to the horror and suffering of many innocent children and parents. He was right and the '' Experts'' where very wrong. Very worrying when you consider how quick this ''safe'' Vaccine was produced.0 -
Thought of the day. I was born in 1960. Whilst pregnant my mother suffered morning sickness.. she was proscribed Thalidomide which was regarded safe by medical experts. My father thought otherwise and flushed it down the toilet. Who was right, my father or the experts?
Well, seeing as Thalidomide is still in use today I guess your daddy was just one of those sixth sense people, your mammy could have taken Thalidomide whilst pregnant and no adverse side affects to her or baby you.
Same with all medicines.0 -
My point is the experts and scientists passed the drug as safe, to the horror and suffering of many innocent children and parents. He was right and the '' Experts'' where very wrong. Very worrying when you consider how quick this ''safe'' Vaccine was produced.
Yes I got your point. Which is why I emphasised it was an isolated incident rather than systematic.
Your story is the equivalent to a bridge falling down in the 60's and saying "we can't trust engineers"0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23659
... And the ways that drugs are tested and licensed have changed significantly since the '50's and they do a bit more than give it to a couple of rabbits, notice they don't die, and then declare the drug as suitable for solving every condition known.0 -
You refered to Sweden and Japan earlier but what are your thoughts on Brazil?
President has opposed lockdown by and large, and the health system is now close to collapse.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/05/973822851/brazil-in-crisis-it-feels-like-you-are-in-stalingrad-in-world-war-ii
Also, Tegnell in Sweden has admitted they should have done more in hindsight:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717
This is really pointless. I’m talking to covid cultists here...seems to me Sweden has done fine. The exact same or even better as the EU countries who locked down hard. Fair play to Tegnell he had balls I’ll give him that. What’s surprising and disturbing is that Sweden was the only country in Western Europe that was not a complete slave to the mass hysteria that was formented by the globalists and their sycophants in the media.
As for Brazil if you’ve ever been there or talked to a Brazilian it’s a basket case of a nation anyway corrupt on all levels and all it’s services are constantly in a state of collapse. I don’t believe it’s health service has collapsed any more than any other third world country you care to mention. As for our hospitals, ask anyone who’s been there. They’re empty.
Lockdown is to destroy private enterprises and employment that’s all. People who work for corporations and civil servants are sitting on full pay delighted. The globalists want everyone working for a corporation or the government. They don’t want self employed people. This is the perfect excuse to destroy them. The globalists want everybody working as an employee to a corporation or a slave to the government because this grants them most control. If you don’t follow their “policies” no job for you. This is the reality of the new world that we’ve walked into.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23659
Lockdown is to destroy private enterprises and employment that’s all. People who work for corporations and civil servants are sitting on full pay delighted. The globalists want everyone working for a corporation or the government. They don’t want self employed people. This is the perfect excuse to destroy them. The globalists want everybody working as an employee to a corporation or a slave to the government because this grants them most control. If you don’t follow their “policies” no job for you. This is the reality of the new world that we’ve walked into.
So how does making everyone work for the government or one of a couple of other massive companies help anyone? How is that generating more wealth for these globalists running the show if everyone is working for them? Where is the rest of the economic activity coming from? What is the problem for SuperMassiveCorp if there are other people working as self employed?
And why didn't New Zealand or Australia get this memo?0 -
PintOfView wrote: »We all want good information, so that we can make good decisions about all this.
I don't have much time but here are the results from some quick searching:
1) A link to the study you linked to above, however this is a web page, not a PDF.
Read what a commenter says at the bottom (he gives 7 flaws in the study that he says "render it's IFR estimate unreliable:")
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3
2) A paper showing flaws in various studies of IFR
https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/28/2/taaa239/6062388
So, just because a study makes some claims, these need to be verified.
3) A study from the US National Library of Medicine from Dec 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
Some quotes from that study
"The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85"
So they say that that IFR at 55 = 0.4%, and at 65 = 1.4%
You quoted your study as saying IFR under 70 is 0.05%
There is a very big difference, perhaps got by averaging all under 70's.
However it's very misleading if 0.4% of 55 year olds may die, and 1.4% of 65 year olds!!
That study also goes on to say ...
"These results indicate that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza."
If you are concerned about the truth, rather selectively quoting studies, then take a look at the totality of what's out there, and make a realistic assessment of what the facts are!!
The average age of death for a covid patient is 82 whereas life expectancy is 80. Yes it is dangerous to the over 80s so are a lot of things. Does this disease justify the global lockdown and the gigantic costs to the economy, to mental and physical well being of the younger and more productive member of society? No it does not.
Trust me this is not about protecting the elderly.
Remember the HSE sent covid positive patients into the nursing homes which killed a huge proportion of them. Let’s not forget the huge psychological damage they did too by banning religious services and recommending they don’t hug their grandchildren. Not to mention RTE striking the fear of god into them every night with their constant scare mongering and propaganda. Remember this is the same shower (HSE)who left thousands of elderly to die on trolleys every year before covid. You think they care? You’re having a laugh.0 -
So how does making everyone work for the government or one of a couple of other massive companies help anyone? How is that generating more wealth for these globalists running the show if everyone is working for them? Where is the rest of the economic activity coming from? What is the problem for SuperMassiveCorp if there are other people working as self employed?
And why didn't New Zealand or Australia get this memo?
Do you know how much money the wealthy have gained since lockdown? The estimates are 3.5 trillion globally mostly at the expense of the poorer workers who don’t have a government or multi national pay check to rely on and have seen their businesses completely destroyed I’m talking about the service industry, the waitresses and bar men, the music business the clubs and the taxi drivers. They got screwed by a kleptocracy that pretends it’s all about saving the 82 year olds. It’s a sick joke.
Here’s the US data for you .
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-5-21-Billionaires-Press-Release-at-Two-month-Covid-Pandemic-FINAL.pdf
It’s a disgrace and the crime of the century I reckon. Let’s not forget Moderna the biggest biotech IPO in history and they never had one drug approved before emergency use authorisation for covid 19. Their market cap was down 50% from the IPO before covid came along. Just another coincidence that made some well connected shareholders extremely rich.0 -
This is really pointless. I’m talking to covid cultists here...seems to me Sweden has done fine. The exact same or even better as the EU countries who locked down hard. Fair play to Tegnell he had balls I’ll give him that. What’s surprising and disturbing is that Sweden was the only country in Western Europe that was not a complete slave to the mass hysteria that was formented by the globalists and their sycophants in the media.
As for Brazil if you’ve ever been there or talked to a Brazilian it’s a basket case of a nation anyway corrupt on all levels and all it’s services are constantly in a state of collapse. I don’t believe it’s health service has collapsed any more than any other third world country you care to mention. As for our hospitals, ask anyone who’s been there. They’re empty.
Lockdown is to destroy private enterprises and employment that’s all. People who work for corporations and civil servants are sitting on full pay delighted. The globalists want everyone working for a corporation or the government. They don’t want self employed people. This is the perfect excuse to destroy them. The globalists want everybody working as an employee to a corporation or a slave to the government because this grants them most control. If you don’t follow their “policies” no job for you. This is the reality of the new world that we’ve walked into.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I wouldnt consider myself a Covid cultist. In my search history you can see how I was anti lockdown last year but I do believe that somewhere between your position and the pro lockdown folks is possibly a good compromise outside of winter flu season. I think more shops could be open now with mandatory masks, sanitizers, limited numbers etc.
However, human beings have a tendency to break the rules to suit their own end instead of behaving for the common good. With that in mind many lockdown rules have been set harsh as its a herculean task to control the movements of millions of people in a pandemic. This situation plays out in other laws as well (example: holding a phone while driving (not even using) is an offence, but holding a pair glasses is not). So I can understand the fear of opening up too much, too early when people are already breaking the rules all over the place anyway. The returning of students to school and more social mingling in the last few weeks with better weather is probably the main reason the government is cautious.
The hospitals are empty, however I know of some medical staff in Tallaght & Tullamore that mentioned how it got to the brim of melting point back in January and how they supported the lockdown. Its interesting to note how Ivor Cummins has gone quiet on the anti lockdown stance in recent months also.0 -
Advertisement
-
Remember folks it’s all about saving the 80 year olds. Or something. Just hang in there eh 6 weeks to flatten the curve.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tony-blair-covid-vaccine-passport-g7-b1793913.html
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/03/gove-hints-at-vaccine-passport-app/0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement