When will it all end?

bucketybuck

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

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.

They could have done far more than that. They could have taken some of the billions wasted in the past year and invested strongly in support networks that would allow the old and vulnerable to maintain a quality of life while still cocooning.

But no, that would be difficult and need some intelligent planning, far easier to swing the lockdown for all sledgehammer.

ujjjjjjjjj

johnire wrote: »

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

Would prefer not to get it, just like I would prefer not to get the flu or a a cold.

But if the price for not getting covid is these restrictions them no, I am happy to get it and take my chances and also happy for anyone in my family too if they choose to get on with life. But let me be clear if someone in my family wants to isolate and protect themselves that is their choice. My parents for example are currently doing this. I respect their decision.

Several members of my extended family have already had it and all fine, mild flu symptoms at worst.

Have never once been scared by Covid as I have looked at the data and the risk is low.

ujjjjjjjjj

bucketybuck wrote: »

They could have done far more than that. They could have taken some of the billions wasted in the past year and invested strongly in support networks that would allow the old and vulnerable to maintain a quality of life while still cocooning.

But no, that would be difficult and need some intelligent planning, far easier to swing the lockdown for all sledgehammer.

Entirely agree.

aziz

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

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

So you’re saying that if you are **** at your job, you still get to keep it

Annasopra

bucketybuck wrote: »

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

Its not about you

SnuggyBear

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not about you

Aren't we all in this together?

Doctor Jimbob

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.

The state is also advising that it's safe to open schools despite the fact they involve mixing with others.

I'm not even arguing for schools to stay closed. I wanted them closed before to help get things under control but at this point I can see the need to open them. Just pointing out the inconsistency in the messaging.

Annasopra

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Would prefer not to get it, just like I would prefer not to get the flu or a a cold.

But if the price for not getting covid is these restrictions them no, I am happy to get it and take my chances and also happy for anyone in my family too if they choose to get on with life. But let me be clear if someone in my family wants to isolate and protect themselves that is their choice. My parents for example are currently doing this. I respect their decision.

Several members of my extended family have already had it and all fine, mild flu symptoms at worst.

Have never once been scared by Covid as I have looked at the data and the risk is low.

You are suggesting it is nothing more than a common cold and low risk based on anecdotal evidence though. Thats not data.

ujjjjjjjjj

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are suggesting it is nothing more than a common cold and low risk based on anecdotal evidence though. Thats not data.

No didn't say that.

Annasopra

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Aren't we all in this together?

That poster is treating the issue in an individualistic way as if the entire covid issue is about him/her. If we all did our own individual thing then covid would run riot. Covid is not about 1 individual.

bucketybuck

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not about you

Oh I'm well aware that the state doesn't give a single **** about me or my problems. They have made that very clear.

Coillte_Bhoy

aziz wrote: »

So you’re saying that if you are **** at your job, you still get to keep it

I am saying nothing of the sort. It's actually quite clear what im saying, what do you think an election would solve?

johnire

How so?

bucketybuck wrote: »

Oh I'm well aware that the state doesn't give a single **** about me or my problems. They have made that very clear.

Dr. Bre

It feels like it will never end

Strumms

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.

They are not a balance. They are regulations that when adhered to, keep accidents, injuries and deaths on our roads to a minimum.

Covid laws keep and are keeping people well, healthy and alive.. people can lift the phone, use technology to socialize, converse, see people, get connected, get groceries....

There is a multitude of help and assistance available too.

AdamD

Strumms wrote: »

They are not a balance. They are regulations that when adhered to, keep accidents, injuries and deaths on our roads to a minimum.

Covid laws keep and are keeping people well, healthy and alive.. people can lift the phone, use technology to socialize, converse, see people, get connected, get groceries....

There is a multitude of help and assistance available too.

Highly, highly debatable.

ujjjjjjjjj

Strumms wrote: »

They are not a balance. They are regulations that when adhered to, keep accidents, injuries and deaths on our roads to a minimum.

Covid laws keep and are keeping people well, healthy and alive.. people can lift the phone, use technology to socialize, converse, see people, get connected, get groceries....

There is a multitude of help and assistance available too.

They are a balance......by lowering speed limits to much lower levels and enforcing them we could stop all road deaths but we accept some deaths to reduce the inconvenience of taking 15 hours to drive from Cork to Dublin.

Covid laws are destroying society, livelihoods, businesses, increasing unemployment, destroying mental health, impacting on many other medical issues, delayed cancer treatments etc, removing personal freedoms, increasing state and personal debt, impacting our kids education etc etc etc etc

You may think the balance is okay and the above problems are a price worth paying to save some people from dieing from Covid. I don't.

Cody montana

I’ve genuinely given up.

Bit cynical

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The same has not happened to the 120,00 dead brigade. I believe mortality is currently estimated at 0.3%? If that is correct, the figure would be 15,000 dead, just over 10% of the original estimate.

I think a lot of this came from an early Imperial College model. It suited Boris Johnson in the UK to embrace the findings of this model as they gave him an exit from an earlier herd immunity strategy that had been rejected by the electorate. The Imperial College paper gave him the necessary "science" to do his u-turn even though it was based on assumptions that have since proved inaccurate. The same model has been very influential internationally.

Bit cynical

I find that government policy makes a lot more sense if you imagine that policy makers hold the following unexamined beliefs:

1. The virus is quite deadly and can wipe out swathes of a population if left unchecked (perhaps 20% to 30% wiped out).
2. No immunity is acquired if you catch it and it it quite common to get it again and again.
3. All ages suffer equally. The young and the fit are as likely as the old and sick to die of it.
4. Most who catch it suffer debilitating lingering effects known as "long covid" possibly forever.
5. If you hit the virus hard enough through lockdowns and restrictions it will get the message and think twice before coming back.
6. The coming vaccines have been tested and proven to provide immunity and will wipe out the virus.

ujjjjjjjjj

Bit cynical wrote: »

I find that government policy makes a lot more sense if you imagine that policy makers hold the following unexamined beliefs:

1. The virus is quite deadly and can wipe out swathes of a population if left unchecked (perhaps 20 to 30% wiped out).
2. No immunity is provided if you catch it and it it quite common to get it again and again.
3. All ages suffer equally. The young and the fit are as likely as the old and sick to die of it.
4. Most who catch it suffer debilitating lingering effects known as "long covid" possibly forever.
5. If you hit the virus hard enough through lockdowns and restrictions it will get the message and think twice before coming back.
6. The coming vaccines have been tested and proven to provide immunity and will wipe out the virus.

Makes total sense then.......

Parachutes

Bit cynical wrote: »

I find that government policy makes a lot more sense if you imagine that policy makers hold the following unexamined beliefs:

1. The virus is quite deadly and can wipe out swathes of a population if left unchecked (perhaps 20% to 30% wiped out).
2. No immunity is acquired if you catch it and it it quite common to get it again and again.
3. All ages suffer equally. The young and the fit are as likely as the old and sick to die of it.
4. Most who catch it suffer debilitating lingering effects known as "long covid" possibly forever.
5. If you hit the virus hard enough through lockdowns and restrictions it will get the message and think twice before coming back.
6. The coming vaccines have been tested and proven to provide immunity and will wipe out the virus.

This is pretty much what the media thinks about the disease. The problem is none of this stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny whatsoever.

E mac

Next month when the anniversary of the first lock down comes around media is gonna have a field day bringing down the mood of the nation further. How 'We should have done this should have done that. Finish every article with "still no end in sight"...

mcsean2163

--removed--

I may have gone a bit OTT. Had a day. Stay safe and fingers crossed over soon.

ujjjjjjjjj

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Fwiw, sick of people talking about what if someone catches the virus is asymptomatic and passes it on to a vulnerable or someone close to a vulnerable.

In the words of the Mandalore. This the way.

People have mixed and had fun despite these risks before covid19 and people died. There was a funeral and things such as 'had a good run of it' were said. I do not recall blaming asymptomatic cold carriers, it was accepted that old people died and their life remembered and celebrated.

'If you meet someone and pick up a cold from them and pass it on to your grandmother or mother, then you caused their death', were not things I recall being said. Or, 'young people wanting to meet their friends are selfish aholes'.

Madness.

Insanity the entire thing......

the kelt

Bit cynical wrote: »

I find that government policy makes a lot more sense if you imagine that policy makers hold the following unexamined beliefs:

1. The virus is quite deadly and can wipe out swathes of a population if left unchecked (perhaps 20% to 30% wiped out).
2. No immunity is acquired if you catch it and it it quite common to get it again and again.
3. All ages suffer equally. The young and the fit are as likely as the old and sick to die of it.
4. Most who catch it suffer debilitating lingering effects known as "long covid" possibly forever.
5. If you hit the virus hard enough through lockdowns and restrictions it will get the message and think twice before coming back.
6. The coming vaccines have been tested and proven to provide immunity and will wipe out the virus.

And don’t forget

The virus doesn’t exist in school buildings
It loves alcohol
But dislikes it when it’s served with food.
Our Irish version has a sat nav that activates when people travel further than 5 k
Irish people are dumb enough to believe they don’t have a curfew if you impose a distance travel restriction instead.
Irish people are gullible enough to accept blame and punishment multiple times every time something goes tits up.

And all that matters is there isn’t an optic of hospitals being overrun, everything else can go to hell in a hand basket!

And lastly, if you pump enough fear into a populace you can control them to do what ye want really, key to that is your national broadcaster and popular media outlets.

ujjjjjjjjj

the kelt wrote: »

And don’t forget

The virus doesn’t exist in school buildings
It loves alcohol
But dislikes it when it’s served with food.
Our Irish version has a sat nav that activates when people travel further than 5 k
Irish people are dumb enough to believe they don’t have a curfew if you impose a distance travel restriction instead.
Irish people are gullible enough to accept blame and punishment multiple times every time something goes tits up.

And all that matters is there isn’t an optic of hospitals being overrun, everything else can go to hell in a hand basket!

And lastly, if you pump enough fear into a populace you can control them to do what ye want really, key to that is your national broadcaster and popular media outlets.

Point of note, only with substantial food. Snacks and peanuts don't deter it

bucketybuck

You know what else I am sick of hearing?

"You people are the reason we will have to stay in lockdown".

So let me get this straight. We have given up our civil liberties for a full year, we have followed all the ill considered rules and regulations, but here we are, still in level 5 and being told that we won't be getting out of it any time soon.

And if you respond by saying that you are done with it, you get told that its your fault we have to stay in level 5?

So its my fault that we have to stay in the lockdown that we were going to be staying in anyway?

Thats some gaslighting bull**** that is.

opinionated3

Apparently a campaign emerging online by business owners in Tralee proposing to open up on 1st march as a collective . That's probably gonna be the start of it all...... you'd imagine other towns would follow suit

opinionated3

opinionated3 wrote: »

Apparently a campaign emerging online by business owners in Tralee proposing to open up on 1st march as a collective . That's probably gonna be the start of it all...... you'd imagine other towns would follow suit

Fantastic. I’d hope other people would follow suit surely. Anyone who’s terrified can stay in their bunker. I for one, am done.