How would you feel if restrictions were lifted?

Mr. CooL ICE

weldoninhio wrote: »

If house parties are banned, it’s only fair that pity parties are banned too.

weldoninhio wrote: »

See Zaph above, oh and now Graces has joined him. Quelle Surprise!!

That's fairly rich coming from the guy whose attitude to masks can be reduced down to "me me me"

Graham

GT89 wrote: »

Do you not wearing masks is anti community or anti society?

not sure what you're trying to say there GT.

weldoninhio

Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »

That's fairly rich coming from the guy whose attitude to masks can be reduced down to "me me me"

I didn't have a pity party around masks, I took action and got an exemption. :rolleyes:

Zaph

Zaph wrote: »

The other argument I see regularly is that people with medical conditions or the elderly shouldn't be leaving their homes at all so everybody else can get on with their lives. Well these groups have lives to be getting on with too, and they'll be able to do so much better when things return to normal, whenever that may be. But idiots having parties, or worse, gathering in large groups to protest about face masks or whatever they want to bitch about next, will just keep pushing that time out further and further. Tell me, why should your freedoms be more valuable than mine or others in similar situations? You people are all grown adults, it's about fcuking time you started behaving like adults and take some personal responsibility. Instead of giving out about the pubs being closed or whatever else you can't do, start thinking about what you can actually do to make this situation go away a lot sooner, because you're not the only people who are dying for a decent pint you know.

I wanted to quote your whole post, but these bits stood out.

Well said.

eleventh

Graham wrote: »

Would you call that an anti-community or anti-society approach?

anti-communist I'd call it.

Modern communists talk about 'community' a lot though. It's one of their favourite buzzwords (It's a key way to recognise them).

Real/actual communities are self-run and self-organised- not from the top-down, and certainly not in the way we're seeing where global organisations want to dictate what happens 'in the community'.

I hope that local communities will find their strength in the face of the tyranny(communist/globalist dictatorship) that's on the way, and obviously already well on the way for anyone able to see it.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

I wanted to quote your whole post, but these bits stood out.

Well said.

No ones freedom is more valuable than anyone elses. But if i'm allergic to peanuts i won't be joining my mates on a tour of the peanut factory. I also won't demand they don't go.

Graham

eleventh wrote: »

anti-communist I'd call it.

I don't think communist means what you think it means.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

No ones freedom is more valuable than anyone elses. But if i'm allergic to peanuts i won't be joining my mates on a tour of the peanut factory. I also won't demand they don't go.

Your analogy doesn't work, there is no epi-pen for Covid19.

Where all your arguments fall down every time is that you assume that everyone who is at risk can just go into their homes and lock the door behind them, while everyone else carries on, but what about those who can't cocoon? Or work from home?

"Sorry, I can't come to work because I'm a diabetic/asthmatic" won't qualify them for a PUP payment, yet they have bills and mortgages to pay too.

They need to shop for groceries. (not everywhere can get deliveries). They need to take care of elderly parents etc, etc, etc, but you ignore all this.

No doubt you'll have some other smart-arsed peanut analogy for them too.

Putting you on my ignore list as I just can't deal with your selfish attitude any further.

Please return the favour.

I've tried to remain as positive as possible throughout all of this- cancelled holidays and trips away about 4 times at this stage due to lockdowns etc I've followed the rules to the letter as well as the spirit -

but today, getting a takeaway coffee in shop, in marched 1/2 dozen builders, young lads, early to mid 20s- all bunched up together in the queue, no masks, no social distancing- these were Irish guys so no language excuses for not being able to read the Covid guidance signs - and I just went- we're all fcked, if this is the low regard these lads have to 6 months of education, social distancing, deaths, lockdowns etc

If they do that in a coffee shop, it means they don't care what they'll do elsewhere. I give up!

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

No ones freedom is more valuable than anyone elses.

Correct

Yet the common suggestion in this thread is some people should give up their lives, literally or figuratively so that others don't have to make relatively small sacrifices in the short term.

suicide_circus

Graham wrote: »

Correct

Yet the common suggestion in this thread is some people should give up their lives, literally or figuratively so that others don't have to make relatively small sacrifices in the short term.

Some people are making big sacrifices, have lost their livelihoods and are watching their futures collapse while being berated and pontificated to by people who just had to switch to working from home (which they quite enjoy and hope to continue) and have lost no money all while getting high on their own self righteousness.

gozunda

Bit cynical wrote: »

...
Yes but look at the restrictions they are imposing from that article:

Quote:

So far, Sweden’s students appear to be taking the warning seriously. The organiser of an annual 400-person party in Stockholm told SVT it was a “boring but rational decision to take” following its cancellation.

In Ireland we've never had anything remotely like allowing a 400 person party since the first cases here.

I just love the selective quoting when it comes to special case Sweden

Here's the full detail on those restrictions from that link - not just that swedes having to step in to stop parties. Something which interestingly enough are not permitted here - yet that hasn't stopped some trying

Sweden’s national recommendations to work from home where possible and avoid large gatherings remain in place. Stricter advice applies to people in risk groups or aged over 70

But from October 19, regional authorities will have the power to introduce stricter local guidelines for all residents. According to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, such guidelines could include avoiding public transport, unnecessary travel, visiting people in risk groups, and visiting busy indoor areas such as shopping malls.

Far from lifting their restrictions they're now making them enforceable.

Looks like their they've finally decided to join the real world.

Graham

suicide_circus wrote: »

Some people are making big sacrifices, have lost their livelihoods and are watching their futures collapse while being berated and pontificated to by people who just had to switch to working from home (which they quite enjoy and hope to continue) and have lost no money all while getting high on their own self righteousness.

And yet the most vocal proponents of the "f*** the vulnerable" only appear to be concerned with pints and socialising.

eleventh

Graham wrote: »

I don't think communist means what you think it means.

I explained its meaning in the context you defined.
If you want a discussion, be specific.

funnydoggy

Graham wrote: »

And yet the most vocal proponents of the "f*** the vulnerable" only appear to be concerned with pints and socialising.

The most common opinion I see here is to "protect the vulnerable".

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

Your analogy doesn't work, there is no epi-pen for Covid19.

Where all your arguments fall down every time is that you assume that everyone who is at risk can just go into their homes and lock the door behind them, while everyone else carries on, but what about those who can't cocoon? Or work from home?

"Sorry, I can't come to work because I'm a diabetic/asthmatic" won't qualify them for a PUP payment, yet they have bills and mortgages to pay too.

They need to shop for groceries. (not everywhere can get deliveries). They need to take care of elderly parents etc, etc, etc, but you ignore all this.

No doubt you'll have some other smart-arsed peanut analogy for them too.

Putting you on my ignore list as I just can't deal with your selfish attitude any further.

Please return the favour.

Utter nonsense!!

I'm in the high risk category. I can't work from home. I get 4 buses a day to get to and from work. I need to shop for groceries, although do use Tesco online a bit. I get on with it though. Life is for living.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Where all your arguments fall down every time is that you assume that everyone who is at risk can just go into their homes and lock the door behind them, while everyone else carries on, but what about those who can't cocoon? Or work from home?

"Sorry, I can't come to work because I'm a diabetic/asthmatic" won't qualify them for a PUP payment, yet they have bills and mortgages to pay too.

They need to shop for groceries. (not everywhere can get deliveries). They need to take care of elderly parents etc, etc, etc, but you ignore all this.

And? Why does he have to come up with a perfect solution where no-one is impacted?

You're defending a solution where everyone is impacted, some severely, even if they are at nearly no risk or would be comfortable with more risk.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried to remain as positive as possible throughout all of this- cancelled holidays and trips away about 4 times at this stage due to lockdowns etc I've followed the rules to the letter as well as the spirit -

but today, getting a takeaway coffee in shop, in marched 1/2 dozen builders, young lads, early to mid 20s- all bunched up together in the queue, no masks, no social distancing- these were Irish guys so no language excuses for not being able to read the Covid guidance signs - and I just went- we're all fcked, if this is the low regard these lads have to 6 months of education, social distancing, deaths, lockdowns etc

If they do that in a coffee shop, it means they don't care what they'll do elsewhere. I give up!

The currently best knowledge on worldwide IFR as published by the WHO - condensed from dozens of local studies, peer reviewed and all - has IFR at 0.05% for under 70s and 0.23% over all. There can be local fluctuations due to age structure and other factors but those are the numbers.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

And? Why does he have to come up with a perfect solution where no-one is impacted?

I never asked him to come up with a perfect solution.

Nermal wrote: »

You're defending a solution where everyone is impacted, some severely, even if they are at nearly no risk or would be comfortable with more risk.

Because everyone IS impacted by this, even those who are at "nearly no risk", or would be comfortable with more risk.

Why? Because they can still transmit the virus. There are no exceptions to that. And then it grows, expotentially. And we're right back at square one where we started.

You don't get to decide how "comfortable" you are with it, when the consequences will most likely not affect you personally.

trixi001

GT89 wrote: »

How would you honestly feel if the government turned around tommorrow and said the pubs can reopen to full capacity, all businneses can reopen that were closed, no more restrictions on gatherings, no more mandatory masks, people working from home should go back to work, full capacity on public transport, matches can go ahead with 80k fans, no more social distancing meaning life can return to exactly how it was before last March.

And this assumes that there is not a vaccine or effective treatment the virus would essientially be let loose. How would you feel and be 100% honest. Personally I would be delighted but know our spineless coward politicians would never have the balls to pull such a move.

Quite simply - delighted!!!

People and organisations that want to continue social distancing can - nothing stopping voluntary following of guidelines - the problem is mandating them and closing down businesses that are perfectly safe!

Lift the restrictions now....

I would love to return to life as it was before March - can all the debt i have incurred to keep my business afloat be written off too?

gozunda

eleventh wrote: »

That's a massive IF though. "For a while" is similarly vague and impractical. It could -and does, as we have seen- mean anything from weeks to years.

A realistic way of dealing with it:
Those who are worried about their health/vulnerability, get a hazmat suit. Let others use their judgement as well -with the same freedom you use yours- to decide what's best for their own life and family's.

Current way of dealing with it:
Control/restrict everyone universally, regardless of truth/evidence/agreement - is not only wrong, but not enforceable (without harming or killing people in the process).

Might be worth noting that Australia/NZ are in the opposite season. I'm not following what's happening there but for those who are, let's see if their summer -which is a lot warmer than ours- has much of an effect.

Why not? Because "idiots"

Let me clarify a bit just in case there's any wriggle room there - primarily because of those who not only dont give a **** other than they get to do what they want when they want and fuk everyone else. And thats why we can't leave it to those who think they know better.

bb1234567

weldoninhio wrote: »

The currently best knowledge on worldwide IFR as published by the WHO - condensed from dozens of local studies, peer reviewed and all - has IFR at 0.05% for under 70s and 0.23% over all. There can be local fluctuations due to age structure and other factors but those are the numbers.

Can you post the source then? Last I heard WHO consensus was a global IFR of 0.6%

Excess deaths in Peru are almost 0.3% of the country's population so an IFR of 0.2% seems..unlikely

weldoninhio

bb1234567 wrote: »

Can you post the source then? Last I heard WHO consensus was a global IFR of 0.6%

Excess deaths in Peru are almost 0.3% of the country's population so an IFR of 0.2% seems..unlikely

Was posted in the other thread.

TheChrisD

GT89 wrote: »

How would you honestly feel if the government turned around tommorrow and said the pubs can reopen to full capacity, all businneses can reopen that were closed, no more restrictions on gatherings, no more mandatory masks, people working from home should go back to work, full capacity on public transport, matches can go ahead with 80k fans, no more social distancing meaning life can return to exactly how it was before last March.

First off, I'd be happy that the news bulletins would no longer be 85% about the virus and various restrictions...

I'd still expect a fair portion of the population would choose to continue to work from home, wear masks in public, socially distance, and refrain from gatherings - obviously there will be those with zero cop-on altogether, but that should be a minority.

Aside from the high number of deaths in the early months from the virus getting into the nursing homes, it's been really no deadlier than a seasonal flu; so the ever changing restrictions and the associated effects on the economy and the mental well-being of everyone is really starting to get annoying now. In fact, I'm really starting to get apathetic about this virus...

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Because everyone IS impacted by this, even those who are at "nearly no risk", or would be comfortable with more risk.

You don't get to decide how "comfortable" you are with it, when the consequences will most likely not affect you personally.

You're just arguing in circles. We already accepted the car accident analogy is valid - we are collectively willing to take risks to have a normal life, even if the negative outcomes fall on other people.

kippy

weldoninhio wrote: »

No ones freedom is more valuable than anyone elses. But if i'm allergic to peanuts i won't be joining my mates on a tour of the peanut factory. I also won't demand they don't go.

I know this has been addressed in a later post but to expand.
Most schools now advise their kids not to bring in certain foods in their lunch boxes.
Peanuts are one of them.
Kids and parents of kids with no issues with parents being asked to, and displaying, some social responsibility and care to reduce the risks in school for those that have the allergy - particularily the younger ones!

Its a very poor analogy in fairness but I am prepared to work with you on it.

HeidiHeidi

Nermal wrote: »

You're just arguing in circles. We already accepted the car accident analogy is valid - we are collectively willing to take risks to have a normal life, even if the negative outcomes fall on other people.

"We" did??

pjohnson

kippy wrote: »

I know this has been addressed in a later post but to expand.
Most schools now advise their kids not to bring in certain foods in their lunch boxes.
Peanuts are one of them.
Kids and parents of kids with no issues with parents being asked to, and displaying, some social responsibility and care to reduce the risks in school for those that have the allergy - particularily the younger ones!

Its a very poor analogy in fairness but I am prepared to work with you on it.

Credit where its due, its a slight improvement on the road deaths analogy they tried.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

You're just arguing in circles. We already accepted the car accident analogy is valid - we are collectively willing to take risks to have a normal life, even if the negative outcomes fall on other people.

I never agreed anything about car accidents? You must mean someone else.

But I will say that car accidents are not contagious.

pjohnson

Nermal wrote: »

You're just arguing in circles. We already accepted the car accident analogy is valid - we are collectively willing to take risks to have a normal life, even if the negative outcomes fall on other people.

You guys repeating it does not make it valid :pac: