When will it all end?

aido79

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not defending her but in fairness did she not say that that there was lasting immunity from contracting the virus?

She said that anyone who has has contracted covid will have life long immunity. I wonder if she has done her own research or how she has proven this.
There have been studies to show that people who have had covid have antibodies in their system 6 months later but I'm not aware of any that have shown that a person will have life long immunity.

ujjjjjjjjj

johnire wrote: »

No - people are being specifically asked not to socialise and in this instance this person is deliberately breaking that request.

I think the entire point of this discussion is whether people think it is acceptable to be asked that question. If you have consenting adults aware of the risks then some feel it is their choice.

johnire

But that's the issue- a selfish attitude like that can affect someone else. That person can decide they've had enough and go to their friends for a few drinks or a BBQ. They get a Covid as a result of this gathering but before they realise this they've been out and about in a supermarket or wherever and have ended up infecting some poor person who has been following the rules and they in turn pose a threat to their family. What part of that is so difficult to understand ?

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

I think the entire point of this discussion is whether people think it is acceptable to be asked that question. If you have consenting adults aware of the risks then some feel it is their choice.

josip

johnire wrote: »

But that's the issue- a selfish attitude like that can affect someone else. That person can decide they've had enough and go to their friends for a few drinks or a BBQ. They get a Covid as a result of this gathering but before they realise this they've been out and about in a supermarket or wherever and have ended up infecting some poor person who has been following the rules and they in turn pose a threat to their family. What part of that is so difficult to understand ?

How they infected the poor person in the supermarket.

johnire

By passing on the virus.

josip wrote: »

How they infected the poor person in the supermarket.

josip

johnire wrote: »

By passing on the virus.

Yes how?
Did they lick them or sneeze in their faces in the frozen foods section?

Silentcorner

johnire wrote: »

By passing on the virus.

Jesus, the people working in Supermarkets must be dropping like flies are they?

josip

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus, the people working in Supermarkets must be dropping like flies are they?

Worse than meat factories apparently.

johnire

No... you are deliberately missing the point. The virus spreads through social interaction. You know exactly the point I'm making.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus, the people working in Supermarkets must be dropping like flies are they?

josip

johnire wrote: »

No... you are deliberately missing the point. The virus spreads through social interaction. You know exactly the point I'm making.

No John, we don't think you know the point you're making.
You might think you do, but you haven't thought it through very far.

Lundstram

johnire wrote: »

No... you are deliberately missing the point. The virus spreads through social interaction. You know exactly the point I'm making.

You seem to be suggesting:

If know the person (friend) - infected easily.

Stranger (supermarket worker) - not infected easily.

I'm embarrassed for you.

johnire

Enlighten me then.

josip wrote: »

No John, we don't think you know the point you're making.
You might think you do, but you haven't thought it through very far.

johnire

This makes no sense... Please explain.

Lundstram wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting:

If know the person (friend) - infected easily.

Stranger (supermarket worker) - not infected easily.

I'm embarrassed for you.

Mr. Karate

Deleted User wrote: »

It will end on the first of never at this rate. We're still a week from March, and the likes of hospitality knocked on head until June at earliest. The cynic in me detects many a kite flown to distract from lacklustre provision for additional ICU beds & glacial rollout of vaccines. As for the latest variant imported from Brazil this week, just goes to show what dundering apes we have running the country.

Any extensions after the 31st of May need to come with the resignations of Martin, Varadkar, Holohan and the rest of the cowards in the Dail. Along witha
date for a General Election. This is a complete and total failure on their parts and they shouldn't be allowed to stay in power if they're only plan is to stay in lockdown until we're either homeless, starve to death or commit suicide.

Strumms

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

I think the entire point of this discussion is whether people think it is acceptable to be asked that question. If you have consenting adults aware of the risks then some feel it is their choice.

It’s demanded off consenting adults that they don’t drive at excess speeds on the motorway and that speed should by law be limited..

Motorways 120km/h
National roads 100km/h
Regional roads 80km/h
Urban areas 50km/h
Special limits (schools etc) 30km/h

If consenting adults are aware of the risks, to themselves and others, should they be permitted to break speed limits ?, Endangering the health, lives and wellbeing of themselves, passengers, fellow motorists and potentially emergency services ?

saintsaltynuts

The good news for me is within the last few days on here and within the people i meet outside they are seriously getting browned off with this. I can feel a bit of tension in the air and the longer it goes on the worse it will get til...POP! Trust me the government dont want that.

josip

johnire wrote: »

Enlighten me then.

If the virus is so contagious that someone could still pass it on to someone else in a supermarket who is masked and social distancing, where aren't supermarkets being identified by NPHET as a hotbed of virus transmission?
Why aren't supermarket workers demanding full PPE?
Why haven't my friend and sister-in-law who both work in supermarkets, not seen ANY cases among their fellow workers?

opinionated3

johnire wrote: »

And if you develop Covid as a result of this do you expect the State to have to pay for your treatment?

Well I pay a small fortune each year to VHI so I trust that should cover me if it really does go pear shaped ( granted I might not be able to renew next year due to being on a whopping pay cut and wife on PUP due to these restrictions).

Coillte_Bhoy

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Any extensions after the 31st of May need to come with the resignations of Martin, Varadkar, Holohan and the rest of the cowards in the Dail. Along witha
date for a General Election. This is a complete and total failure on their parts and they shouldn't be allowed to stay in power if they're only plan is to stay in lockdown until we're either homeless, starve to death or commit suicide.

And what difference would a general election and a new Dail make? None

johnire

So what if you pay for private health insurance?

opinionated3 wrote: »

Well I pay a small fortune each year to VHI so I trust that should cover me if it really does go pear shaped ( granted I might not be able to renew next year due to being on a whopping pay cut and wife on PUP due to these restrictions).

VG31

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Any extensions after the 31st of May need to come with the resignations of Martin, Varadkar, Holohan and the rest of the cowards in the Dail. Along witha
date for a General Election. This is a complete and total failure on their parts and they shouldn't be allowed to stay in power if they're only plan is to stay in lockdown until we're either homeless, starve to death or commit suicide.

Considering the opposition parties are even more pro-lockdown/restrictions an election would be pointless.

Annasopra

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Public health crossed the line last March when we imposed restrictions rather than providing advice which people can choose to heed or not. That is not the type of society I want to live in. It is a nightmare.

I also firmly believe the damage from the lockdown agenda far outweighs any benefit and ultimately with public health advice being provided if people choose to ignore it and get sick (elderly person who says sod it I am going to the pub etc....) that is their choice and I entirely respect it.

Don't understand the point you are making re children. If someone in society doesn't want to.mix for fear of catching this virus that is their choice. If my kids go to school and my parents want to isolate then fine, they isolate, get someone to do their shopping, etc etc and we don't visit. Their choice I respect it.

We can agree to disagree that is fine but in wider society right now the needs of a few are being imposed and manipulated onto the majority and most people don't even see it.

What I am saying is that your children may not be a high risk of dieing from the virus but they are a risk of spreading it to others who are at risk of dieing.

This is about public health though. The scientists have determined the best way to stop the virus spreading is to impose restrictions. Its not ideal, its not good for businesses, its not good for mental health.

Fair enough if you give everyone chouce and lift all restrictions but the reality is that thousands will die because of that and the Hospital system simply wont be able to cope.

From a societal/public health viewpoint restrictions are needed in order to halt covid spreading and the consequences of that.

Annasopra

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ya, the sneaky announcement on Thursday night broke a lot of people.

In my circles, there is increased organised gatherings and a huge sense that we have been put through enough...that announcement pushed people too far.

Just because the state has abandoned science and logic doesn't mean we all have to!!

So the state is advising you based on scientific advice not to to mix with others but your opinion is its perfectly safe because you made up the science in your head.

ujjjjjjjjj

Strumms wrote: »

It’s demanded off consenting adults that they don’t drive at excess speeds on the motorway and that speed should by law be limited..

Motorways 120km/h
National roads 100km/h
Regional roads 80km/h
Urban areas 50km/h
Special limits (schools etc) 30km/h

If consenting adults are aware of the risks, to themselves and others, should they be permitted to break speed limits ?, Endangering the health, lives and wellbeing of themselves, passengers, fellow motorists and potentially emergency services ?

Speed limits are a balance to reduce risk on our roads to an acceptable level. If we wanted to reduce deaths on our roads entirely enforce a strict 10kmh speed limit and no one dies but we have balanced risk v getting on with life and accept some deaths each year.

We wear seat belts for the same reason, three point racing harnesses and roll cages would be safer again but it is a balance of risk mitigation v getting on with life.

The important thing here is that being forced to observe speed limits, wear a safety belt etc does not have any significant impact on our ability to drive or enjoy life or get from a to b, it is a reasonable compromise.

We fly even though people die every year....etc etc.

You may not like it but I think the risk from Covid to most people is now way below the threshold of the negatives lockdown etc is causing. I think lockdown is an unreasonable compromise.

Anyone who chooses to isolate or protect themselves with comprehensive health advice being given should be free to do so and I entirely respect their decision. Freely acknowledge that some very elderly or frail people are at a higher risk and if they decide to restrict their movements, not see their grandkids, stay at home, that ultimately is their choice and I entirely support and respect it.

I do not however think it is unreasonable to expect millions of kids, teenagers and adults to live under these draconian restrictions when the real risk to their health is so low. It is utter insanity in my opinion and has been so damaging.

You are free to disagree but that is my opinion and has been since last March when the schools shut.

Nermal

johnire wrote: »

And if you develop Covid as a result of this do you expect the State to have to pay for your treatment?

Where do I sign? I assume I'll also be exempt from paying back the €50BN additional borrowing our policies have incurred, yes? You and your fellow-travellers will take care of that?

bucketybuck

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So the state is advising you based on scientific advice not to to mix with others but your opinion is its perfectly safe because you made up the science in your head.

After a year of losing my civil liberties the state is welcome to go **** itself.

ujjjjjjjjj

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What I am saying is that your children may not be a high risk of dieing from the virus but they are a risk of spreading it to others who are at risk of dieing.

This is about public health though. The scientists have determined the best way to stop the virus spreading is to impose restrictions. Its not ideal, its not good for businesses, its not good for mental health.

Fair enough if you give everyone chouce and lift all restrictions but the reality is that thousands will die because of that and the Hospital system simply wont be able to cope.

From a societal/public health viewpoint restrictions are needed in order to halt covid spreading and the consequences of that.

Sorry just disagree with you, respect your position but not one I can share.

Think it entirely unreasonable where we are now.

The real problem with our health service is years of under investment, it is on its knees every winter, this year is nothing new.

While I fully understand the point of view of public health scientists they are far too one dimensional in my opinion, simply looking at the impact of stopping one virus but not making a reasonable compromise.

The compromise for me from Day One of this was to provide strong health advice to the over 70s and medically vulnerable and move on. Yes tool up the health service where you can.

Sweden in essence got quite close to this approach and came through it fine.

johnire

So are you saying that it doesn't bother you if you or your family get Covid?

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Speed limits are a balance to reduce risk on our roads to an acceptable level. If we wanted to reduce deaths on our roads entirely enforce a strict 10kmh speed limit and no one dies but we have balanced risk v getting on with life and accept some deaths each year.

We wear seat belts for the same reason, three point racing harnesses and roll cages would be safer again but it is a balance of risk mitigation v getting on with life.

The important thing here is that being forced to observe speed limits, wear a safety belt etc does not have any significant impact on our ability to drive or enjoy life or get from a to b, it is a reasonable compromise.

We fly even though people die every year....etc etc.

You may not like it but I think the risk from Covid to most people is now way below the threshold of the negatives lockdown etc is causing. I think lockdown is an unreasonable compromise.

Anyone who chooses to isolate or protect themselves with comprehensive health advice being given should be free to do so and I entirely respect their decision. Freely acknowledge that some very elderly or frail people are at a higher risk and if they decide to restrict their movements, not see their grandkids, stay at home, that ultimately is their choice and I entirely support and respect it.

I do not however think it is unreasonable to expect millions of kids, teenagers and adults to live under these draconian restrictions when the real risk to their health is so low. It is utter insanity in my opinion and has been so damaging.

You are free to disagree but that is my opinion and has been since last March when the schools shut.

bucketybuck

johnire wrote: »

And if you develop Covid as a result of this do you expect the State to have to pay for your treatment?

I'll happily pay for my own covid treatment should I happen to get it.

How much is flat Lucozade these days anyway?

ujjjjjjjjj

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So the state is advising you based on scientific advice not to to mix with others but your opinion is its perfectly safe because you made up the science in your head.

Or I have taken the advice , measured the risk and chosen to ignore it.

Just like alcohol, fatty foods etc etc.....or a zillion othe things we all do everyday which is not good for us.....

The point is the state is not advising me of anything, it is imposing strict draconian legal restrictions. I would no issue if all it was doing was providing health advice, like eat more fruit and veg, exercise more, get a flu vaccine, don't have unprotected sex etc etc.