Are you adhering to the Households rule?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s there to misinterpret?

She was at a shopping centre giving out about other people at the shopping centre. She was in Costa giving about other people been in Costa...

Typical Pro lockdowner. Happy to impose restrictions on people so she can do as she pleases

I was in a car park at a shopping centre.

I did go into a Costa, but left immediately.

I see you ignore the fact that it was a McDs drive-thru i went to , but this has all been posted about before

Again, its pathetic how you will attack me for leaving my home for groceries and trying to get a cup of coffee on my one trip out during the week during I think it was level 3 at the time - and then try to make it into me being pro- lockdown so I can do whatever I like?

Talk about twisting something to suit yourself.

It just shows how low some are willing to go, that you obviously went back through old threads to try and find something to throw at me, and this is the best you can do.

Pathetic.

end of the road

Eivor wrote: »

Think it’s you who needs to do that. You want 5 million people to curtail their actions for 1-2 years because it suits yourself.

And on the other hand, people want restrictions lifted as they’re not affected by the virus to suit themselves. The thing is, there is really no onus on the non-affected to care about the affected at all. As things drag on, those people (who are the majority) will lose interest and want their lives to return to normal. At which point it will be up to the affected to look after themselves.

the reality is the non-effected now will care quite quickly when the services they rely on crash because they stopped caring and case numbers rose to an unsustainable level.
that's what some people are not getting, the restrictions are not about simply protecting people vulnerable to the virus, that is just a small part of why we are under restrictions.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha, I have no idea what you are on about and I suspect you don’t either.

She admitted to been in Costa.

No more context needed.

what she actually stated is what she stated.
you on the other hand took the post completely out of context.
sounds like you are backtracking because you have been caught bluffing.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was in a car park at a shopping centre.

I did go into a Costa, but left immediately.

I see you ignore the fact that it was a McDs drive-thru i went to , but this has all been posted about before

Again, its pathetic how you will attack me for leaving my home for groceries and trying to get a cup of coffee on my one trip out during the week during I think it was level 3 at the time - and then try to make it into me being pro- lockdown so I can do whatever I like?

Talk about twisting something to suit yourself.

It just shows how low some are willing to go, that you obviously went back through old threads to try and find something to throw at me, and this is the best you can do.

Pathetic.

Do you want me to highlight the key words...

Shopping Centre, Costa, McDonalds... Every week is it?

Drive through is not safe. You would still be handling packaging and there would be droplets.

It wasn’t even an old thread. It was this very thread before you got banned the last time.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

what she actually stated is what she stated.
you on the other hand took the post completely out of context.
sounds like you are backtracking because you have been caught bluffing.

Did she admit to been in Costa?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you want me to highlight the key words...

Shopping Centre, Costa, McDonalds... Every week is it?

Drive through is not safe. You would still be handling packaging and there would be droplets.

It wasn’t even an old thread. It was this very thread before you got banned the last time.

the poster has already highlighted the key points of her post, so i don't think we need your misinterpreted taken out of context key words.
i say misinterpreted taken out of context because the poster has stated that this is the case and has provided sufficient proof to show what she actually stated.
the game is up lad.
it's over, you tried to dig up something to have a go at the poster and it backfired, failed spectacularly.
i need say no more on this particular line of discussion as you have been sufficiently challenged by me.

jrosen

I just want life to continue and if that means some restrictions in the short term I think its an acceptable sacrifice. Im not vulnerable and neither are my family but that shouldnt mean I dont need to play my part.

I want to see people working, kids in school, health apps maintained, people getting the supports they need. I want the hospitals to be quite because everyone is seen, not because people are staying home and not reporting their illness.

I had a man I know tell me recently he had his post cancer check up done over the phone. If it was possible to do such checks over the phone then we would be doing it all the time. We aren't because its not good enough.

We are going to see a huge spike post christmas.

Eivor

Eivor wrote: »

Think it’s you who needs to do that. You want 5 million people to curtail their actions for 1-2 years because it suits yourself.

And on the other hand, people want restrictions lifted as they’re not affected by the virus to suit themselves. The thing is, there is really no onus on the non-affected to care about the affected at all. As things drag on, those people (who are the majority) will lose interest and want their lives to return to normal. At which point it will be up to the affected to look after themselves.

(a) I have never said that I want 5 million people to curtail their actions for 1-2 years because it suits me. Please quote any post where I have said that.

(b) The thing is, there is really no onus on the non-affected to care about the affected at all.

And yet, in return for this lack of care, I am supposed to care about their jobs, their financial difficulties, their children's futures, their cancelled hospital appointments etc, while I'm being attacked for venturing outside of my house for groceries or a dare step inside a cafe for a take away coffee - and people are liking that post.

After this, no more.

I don't know what the **** is wrong with you people, but I'm done.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the poster has already highlighted the key points of her post, so i don't think we need your misinterpreted taken out of context key words.
i say misinterpreted taken out of context because the poster has stated that this is the case and has provided sufficient proof to show what she actually stated.
the game is up lad.
it's over, you tried to dig up something to have a go at the poster and it backfired, failed spectacularly.
i need say no more on this particular line of discussion as you have been sufficiently challenged by me.

Nothing back fired. You weren’t even involved in the original debate that led to that poster getting thread banned.

The person going for non essential coffees and click and collects is upset at people breaking the household rules.

That is all that is relevant.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(a) I have never said that I want 5 million people to curtail their actions for 1-2 years because it suits me. Please quote any post where I have said that.

(b) The thing is, there is really no onus on the non-affected to care about the affected at all.

And yet, in return for this lack of care, I am supposed to care about their jobs, their financial difficulties, their children's futures, their cancelled hospital appointments etc, while I'm being attacked for venturing outside of my house for groceries or a dare step inside a cafe for a take away coffee - and people are liking that post.

After this, no more.

I don't know what the **** is wrong with you people, but I'm done.

At least you are starting to admit that you don’t care.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

At least you are starting to admit that you don’t care.

That has never been true.

But after some of the things I've read from posters from this evening I will try to return the favour and stop concerning myself with the issues that concern them. Like rising unemployment and their children's futures.

Reading their posts this evening has really made me feel safer, less vulnerable, less isolated and more hopeful for 2021. Not.

_Kaiser_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That has never been true.

But after some of the things I've read from posters from this evening I will try to return the favour and stop concerning myself with the issues that concern them. Like rising unemployment and their children's futures.

Reading their posts this evening has really made me feel safer, less vulnerable, less isolated and more hopeful for 2021. Not.

This is a ridiculous statement. You're basically throwing a tantrum because some people don't fear the virus as you do.

You're giving out about what they've posted when you've done nothing but attack them for calmly and fairly explaining why this is, and you have the neck then to act offended when they stand by what they've said - frankly you owe Susie an apology I think, who was both civil, understanding and very patient with your replies. I forgot it was you in "coffeegate" but you did the same thing then too.

This is a discussion forum. Not everyone will agree with everything and especially not on a topic like this where the measures are increasingly splitting the country. If you can't handle that then maybe stop reading and annoying yourself.

Right,... But that's your solution to everything, isn't it? Everyone who doesn't agree with YOU should just disappear and stop posting.. Just like anyone who is high risk people should stop bothering everyone and self isolate so you can get on with your "normal" life. Same thing.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Right,... But that's your solution to everything, isn't it? Everyone who doesn't agree with YOU should just disappear and stop posting.. Just like anyone who is high risk people should stop bothering everyone and self isolate so you can get on with your "normal" life. Same thing.

We have social distancing in place. We have masks in place in retail and on public transport. We’ve had wet pubs closed since March. All big events cancelled. Weddings more or less cancelled. Retail and restaurants closed for several months this year. 350000 forced out of work. People not allowed to visit their parents...

That is more than going above and beyond to help protect the vulnerable.

If you are still not comfortable with the level of risk, stay in.

I cannot believe how selfish you are!!! You actually want the majority to sacrifice even more for the minority?

Soon you might see young healthy families losing their home and begging outside Costa. Perhaps you can drop them a euro as you pass by...

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Right,... But that's your solution to everything, isn't it? Everyone who doesn't agree with YOU should just disappear and stop posting.. Just like anyone who is high risk people should stop bothering everyone and self isolate so you can get on with your "normal" life. Same thing.

This response is exactly what I'm talking about. Where did I say you should disappear and stop posting? Believe me if I'd intended to say that you'd be in no doubt.

What I ACTUALLY said was that you need to accept that not everyone will agree with you on a public forum, and in this case not everyone will have the same level of concern or fear about CV-19 that you do... and guess what, they're perfectly entitled to feel that way, just as you are to feel as you do.

But it's very hard to engage in a discussion with someone who continues to stamp their foot, throw tantrums and spout baseless accusations so I'll leave you at it.

AdamD

Everyone is acting within their own self interests. Its pretty naive to think one side of the argument is amazingly altruistic

SusieBlue

AdamD wrote: »

Everyone is acting within their own self interests. Its pretty naive to think one side of the argument is amazingly altruistic

That’s literally all I was trying to say but apparently that makes me a horrible person who doesn’t care if loads of people die so long as I get to have my fun at Xmas :rolleyes:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

(a) I have never said that I want 5 million people to curtail their actions for 1-2 years because it suits me. Please quote any post where I have said that.

(b) The thing is, there is really no onus on the non-affected to care about the affected at all.



After this, no more.

I don't know what the **** is wrong with you people, but I'm done.

Did you not say in this post you're done, out, over. Yet twice since then, just an hour later at 1.35am and again this morning at 8.15am you're back here berating posters for having a different viewpoint to you??

At this stage of Covid why are you surprised that some people might feel differently to you? We are all looking at this from our own perspective, and this is determined by our own background, our upbringing, our state of health, whether we have a job, a partner, kids, grandparents, close family members abroad, the importance we place on Christmas or not etc. We are not all sheep!! Its refreshing to have lots of different viewpoints, it broadens the mind and makes us consider other people's lives too. (Well.... for most of us :rolleyes::rolleyes: )

Strumms

SusieBlue wrote: »

What an absolutely pathetic post and a lame attempt at gaslighting.


I care about people plenty, I just don’t have tunnel vision with one issue like you do.
Mental health, other healthcare, finances, employment and socialisation are just as important when it comes to a persons long term wellbeing.
After 9 months of restrictions all of those things are extremely relevant and worthy of consideration.

Everyone has their breaking point and everyone has a limit at which they can’t sacrifice any more for the benefit of others.
I fully understand why people who are not at high risk to that virus are desperately trying to claw back some sort of normality.


I suggest you try to have some compassion for those who have had their world upended to protect people like you, while you swan off for non essential Costa coffees while having the cheek to wag the finger at others on the internet.

You’ve got some neck referring to the post which you posted in reply to as pathetic, it’s anything but.

If anything is pathetic it’s another person such as yourself, trying to scut along on the ‘mental health’ bandwagon as if that argument wasn’t as see through as the plastic raincoat of an excuse that it is.

You say....

“Mental health, other healthcare, finances, employment and socialisation are just as important when it comes to a persons long term wellbeing.”

They simply are not... yet ANOTHER person in this pandemic, attempting to USE mental health as a hall pass to scrap restrictions... although a pain in the ass restrictions have kept and are keeping people healthy, well and alive...THAT is the most important thing...they are extremely vital and supportive of in particular those working on the frontline in health... that isn’t getting recognized enough...

We need to keep going... with the easing of restrictions I’ll be doing not much different... I’ll be shopping at quiet times...instead of eating out I’m taking food home from pubs and restaurants... if everyone does the same ie. doing things that help as opposed to what they want.... we will limit the effects and tragic consequences of covid.

Lillyfae

Strumms wrote: »

They simply are not... yet ANOTHER person in this pandemic, attempting to USE mental health as a hall pass to scrap restrictions... although a pain in the ass restrictions have kept and are keeping people healthy, well and alive...THAT is the most important thing...they are extremely vital and supportive of in particular those working on the frontline in health... that isn’t getting recognized enough...

With all due respect, they haven't. Treatments and screening have been postponed for many illnesses, some of which are mental illnesses. People have lost livelihoods, homes, are trying to get by on Covid payments. I guess it's hard to measure how many have died because of lockdown exactly (and not Covid) but I would guess that it has happened.

Strumms

Lillyfae wrote: »

With all due respect, they haven't. Treatments and screening have been postponed for many illnesses, some of which are mental illnesses. People have lost livelihoods, homes, are trying to get by on Covid payments. I guess it's hard to measure how many have died because of lockdown exactly (and not Covid) but I would guess that it has happened.

With all due respect, what qualifies you to question the HSE ? They have, look at the HSE reports on close contact transmission. Public Covid-19 restrictions worked... the health system saw a sharp drop in the average number of close contacts of individuals becoming infected once restrictions were implemented. A sharp drop...in overall numbers.

Treatments, procedures and screenings have and are going ahead where necessary, my own father is proof... his was investigative...not extremely necessary but certainly available.

Lillyfae

Strumms wrote: »

With all due respect, what qualifies you to question the HSE ? They have, look at the HSE reports on close contact transmission. Public Covid-19 restrictions worked... the health system saw a sharp drop in the average number of close contacts of individuals becoming infected once restrictions were implemented. A sharp drop...in overall numbers.

Public Covid-19 restrictions worked against Covid-19 only

Strumms wrote: »

Treatments, screenings have gone ahead where necessary, my own father is proof... his was investigative...not extremely necessary but certainly available.

With all due respect, what qualifies you to deem that all treatments and screenings are going ahead where necessary on the basis of one person's account?

Parabellum9

Strumms wrote: »

With all due respect, what qualifies you to question the HSE ? They have, look at the HSE reports on close contact transmission. Public Covid-19 restrictions worked... the health system saw a sharp drop in the average number of close contacts of individuals becoming infected once restrictions were implemented. A sharp drop...in overall numbers.

Treatments, procedures and screenings have and are going ahead where necessary, my own father is proof... his was investigative...not extremely necessary but certainly available.

That's the best statement I've seen in a while - what qualifies any of us to question the most inept health service we have ever been cursed with in this country? The same HSE who back in March were using the lockdown to boost capacity and beds - the same HSE who came back last month claiming hospitals were on the verge of being overwhelmed because guess what?? The brilliant HSE didn't do what they were supposed to earlier in the year. So yeah, they are fair game for questioning and I don't think anybody needs to be "qualified" to ask what the **** they are doing

Strumms

Lillyfae wrote: »

Public Covid-19 restrictions worked against Covid-19 only



With all due respect, what qualifies you to deem that all treatments and screenings are going ahead where necessary on the basis of one person's account?

It’s based on what’s happening, one persons account is a first hand example. You want to know more ring the HSE or look at their website. I took the trouble to find out myself.. that’s what qualifies me.

Plumbthedepths

Strumms wrote: »

It’s based on what’s happening, one persons account is a first hand example. You want to know more ring the HSE or look at their website. I took the trouble to find out myself.. that’s what qualifies me.

If I remember correctly your partner is a psychologist and you described a 12 year old child who she sees as being ( lovely term btw) ' a needy little bollix' . You're qualified to make an assessment of the people your partner sees?

Lillyfae

Strumms wrote: »

It’s based on what’s happening, one persons account is a first hand example. You want to know more ring the HSE or look at their website. I took the trouble to find out myself.. that’s what qualifies me.

You didn't say it was an example, you said it was proof- one account does not prove anything. Even in the best of health services screening and surgery has been postponed- that has already happened, doesn't matter what's happening now. What we don't know is how that will affect health outcomes- but it obviously won't be positive.

Strumms

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If I remember correctly your partner is a psychologist and you described a 12 year old child who she sees as being ( lovely term btw) ' a needy little bollix' . You're qualified to make an assessment of the people your partner sees?

Ermmm right, This discussion relates to covid, not my partners career,

Strumms

Lillyfae wrote: »

You didn't say it was an example, you said it was proof- one account does not prove anything. Even in the best of health services screening and surgery has been postponed- that has already happened, doesn't matter what's happening now. What we don't know is how that will affect health outcomes- but it obviously won't be positive.

It’s certainly does prove it. It’s happening

Lillyfae

Strumms wrote: »

It’s certainly does prove it. It’s happening

We should call Science and tell it that there's no need to conduct quantitative research anymore then. Strumms says that one example is proof.

Strumms

Lillyfae wrote: »

We should call Science and tell it that there's no need to conduct quantitative research anymore then. Strumms says that one example is proof.

Go ahead, it will keep you busy.

Plumbthedepths

Strumms wrote: »

Ermmm right, This discussion relates to covid, not my partners career,

Actually that discussion demonstrated the type of person you are. At least you have stopped posting about other children you watch whilst drinking your coffee.