When will it all end?

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Is this a new faction you have made up ? Haven't heard of the Pro Covid crowd ?

They are closely affiliated to the permanent lockdowners. Which also seems to made up.

GazzaL

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Agreed. And planes can't land on the M50.....

Think the whole ban cars and we have no road deaths is a facile example but it is relevant as it clearly illustrates society is prepared to tolerate death and serious injury in a limited way so we can live......

Bit like for most people under the age of 65 Covid isn't a risk worth thinking about but we have society shut down.....because no one can admit we panicked and have got it totally wrong.

We accept these risks without giving them a second thought.

When I got into my car today, I didn't think "right, better not crash and kill anyone today".

When I walked across the road, I didn't see my life flash before my eyes.

ujjjjjjjjj

GazzaL wrote: »

Our health service is barely functional at the best of times. We might as well permanently shut the country down and burn the place to the ground if that's the metric.

The pro-lockdown crowd offer absolutely nothing. Even when cases were in single digits, they were crowing for more restrictions. Confronted with facts, acceptable risk, any criticism of our failed testing and contact tracing system, or solutions to avoid full-scale national lockdowns, they don't want to know.

Agreed, it had been broken for years. This 'protect our health service' mantra is the classic last ditch defence of the pro lockdown brigade.......so let's think this one through. If the health service is operating over capacity and beyond safe levels of bed occupancy etc we should close down society until demand reduces. That in essence is what they are arguing for.

In that case every winter in living memory we should have had a lockdown....

ujjjjjjjjj

beauf wrote: »

They are closely affiliated to the permanent lockdowners. Which also seems to made up.

Any relation to the People's Front of Judea ?

xhomelezz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I did, read what Mike Ryan said the other day, he's pretty clear, the lockdown should be on the sick and their contacts. The rest of us should not be restricted.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0217/1197553-trocaire-mike-ryan/

OMFG you still don't understand basics of spread do you?

beauf

GazzaL wrote: »

We accept these risks without giving them a second thought.

When I got into my car today, I didn't think "right, better not crash and kill anyone today".

When I walked across the road, I didn't see my life flash before my eyes.

I can see why you feel car insurance is pointless.

ujjjjjjjjj

GazzaL wrote: »

We accept these risks without giving them a second thought.

When I got into my car today, I didn't think "right, better not crash and kill anyone today".

When I walked across the road, I didn't see my life flash before my eyes.

Hope you didn't go beyond 5km or you probably have killed someone.

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Any relation to the People's Front of Judea ?

...Splitters...

drunkmonkey

xhomelezz wrote: »

OMFG you still don't understand basics of spread do you?

Hi Scotty

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Hope you didn't go beyond 5km or you probably have killed someone.

I thought he wasn't allowed to do anything. So he can't go anywhere according to the pro Covid crowd. Can't leave the house. Nothing.

xhomelezz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Hi Scotty

I'm not Scotty, why would you say that?

Silentcorner

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Agreed, it had been broken for years. This 'protect our health service' mantra is the classic last ditch defence of the pro lockdown brigade.......so let's think this one through. If the health service is operating over capacity and beyond safe levels of bed occupancy etc we should close down society until demand reduces. That in essence is what they are arguing for.

In that case every winter in living memory we should have had a lockdown....

This is a Health Service that has no problem leaving grannies on trollies in corridors with strangers in huge numbers for weeks on end every year without fail....they would make you sick...if this was about our health service, the only number that would matter is hospitalizations which for 80% of the last year, has been on the floor...we've spent 100% of that time in some serious levels of restrictions.

ThunbergsAreGo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why can't we listen to the advice from the WHO, restrictions should be on sick people and their contacts. Mike Ryan has being saying it from the start and reiterated it the other day.

""I've said this since the beginning, if you focus on cases, contacts and clusters, if you focus on restricting the movement of those who are sick or their contacts then you don't have to restrict the movement of all of society", he said.

Cos the WHO told us human to human transmission wasnt a thing? The same WHO who have been consistently given the run around by China

Everyone knows that to do, actually doing it seems very difficult for most governments

ujjjjjjjjj

beauf wrote: »

I thought he wasn't allowed to do anything. So he can't go anywhere according to the pro Covid crowd. Can't leave the house. Nothing.

Sorry who are the Pro Covid crowd, seems to me you have them confused with the Pro lockdown brigade or is there a split and the anti Covid Union are now aligned to the lockdown neutral lot due to a disagreement with the free choice lockdown alliance.

Wash your hands while talking to Joe.

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Agreed, it had been broken for years. This 'protect our health service' mantra is the classic last ditch defence of the pro lockdown brigade.......so let's think this one through. If the health service is operating over capacity and beyond safe levels of bed occupancy etc we should close down society until demand reduces. That in essence is what they are arguing for.

In that case every winter in living memory we should have had a lockdown....

So we are back to its just a flu.

So if you want your surgeon to operate on you when they have the flu. That must mean you want everyone to work when they have the flu. I'm curious what other highly infectious illnesses will you no longer allow to be used for sick leave, paid or unpaid.

ujjjjjjjjj

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is a Health Service that has no problem leaving grannies on trollies in corridors with strangers in huge numbers for weeks on end every year without fail....they would make you sick...if this was about our health service, the only number that would matter is hospitalizations which for 80% of the last year, has been on the floor...we've spent 100% of that time in some serious levels of restrictions.

Yes the irony hasn't been lost on me either. We suddenly seem to care about 80 and 90 year olds dieing whereas year after year they have just been a statistic. And by the way you are lucky to get a trolley normally, a chair is standard treatment procedure.

beauf

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is a Health Service that has no problem leaving grannies on trollies in corridors with strangers in huge numbers for weeks on end every year without fail....they would make you sick...if this was about our health service, the only number that would matter is hospitalizations which for 80% of the last year, has been on the floor...we've spent 100% of that time in some serious levels of restrictions.

So we have a problem with grannies on trollies but giving them Covid is ok. That's the logic? We are outraged about the trollies only....

ujjjjjjjjj

beauf wrote: »

So we are back to its just a flu.

So if you want your surgeon to operate on you when they have the flu. That must mean you want everyone to work when they have the flu. I'm curious what other highly infectious illnesses will you no longer allow to be used for sick leave, paid or unpaid.

Never said it was the flu. I have made a mistake though.

The save our health service argument is not the only defence method for the lockdown zealots, when challenged they resort to the 'so you think it's a flu' as a final attempt to avoid having a safe discussion.

Can I ask you one question ?

What exact criteria would you require for all restrictions and I mean all restrictions to be lifted ?

mcsean2163

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Never said it was the flu. I have made a mistake though.

The save our health service argument is not the only defence method for the lockdown zealots, when challenged they resort to the 'so you think it's a flu' as a final attempt to avoid having a safe discussion.

Can I ask you one question ?

What exact criteria would you require for all restrictions and I mean all restrictions to be lifted ?

Blowjobs.

GazzaL

GazzaL wrote: »

It's amazing that even with vaccines being rolled out, the pro-lockdown crowd are still demanding permanent lockdowns.

Well, they are going to get their wish. The vaccine isn't a magic bullet, and the country is still going to have to live with Covid, when the rollout is complete. Lockdowns are a cheap and effective way of protecting the hospitals right now. That might change when the cheap money dries up, but that is the strategy that they've decided to run with, and it's a good one from the perspective of the HSE and government. They are probably going to destroy your economy, and force a generation to move abroad, but that appears to be an afterthought.

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Sorry who are the Pro Covid crowd, seems to me you have them confused with the Pro lockdown brigade or is there a split and the anti Covid Union are now aligned to the lockdown neutral lot due to a disagreement with the free choice lockdown alliance...

I guess if you are in favour of any restrictions however light you are pro permanent lockdown. If you want no restrictions on spreading Covid or any restrictions on driving cars or landing planes on motorways then you are pro Covid.

ujjjjjjjjj

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Blowjobs.

Are they currently banned ?

mcsean2163

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Are they currently banned ?

They're allowed from a socially distant distance of 2 metres.

Miming is just not the same.

ujjjjjjjjj

beauf wrote: »

I guess if you are in favour of any restrictions however light you are pro permanent lockdown. If you want no restrictions on spreading Covid or any restrictions on driving cars or landing planes on motorways then you are pro Covid.

What if you are happy about having restrictions as to where planes can land but anti covid restrictions?

ujjjjjjjjj

mcsean2163 wrote: »

They're allowed from a socially distant distance of 2 metres.

Miming is just not the same.

Interesting concept......

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Never said it was the flu. I have made a mistake though.

The save our health service argument is not the only defence method for the lockdown zealots, when challenged they resort to the 'so you think it's a flu' as a final attempt to avoid having a safe discussion.

Can I ask you one question ?

What exact criteria would you require for all restrictions and I mean all restrictions to be lifted ?

Skynet to become sentient.

I answered your question. So answer mine. What infectious illnesses do you want medical staff to continue to work with and not go home.

ujjjjjjjjj

beauf wrote: »

Skynet to become sentient.

I answered your question. So answer mine. What infectious illnesses do you want medical staff to continue to work with and not go home.

It"s getting close to Skynet.

Exactly the same ones that they did before Covid arrived in our hysterical minds.

beauf

mcsean2163 wrote: »

They're allowed from a socially distant distance of 2 metres.

Miming is just not the same.

Good luck getting anyone to measure that accurately.

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

It"s getting close to Skynet.

Exactly the same ones that they did before Covid arrived in our hysterical minds.

So if Covid is no worse than the flu and I assume they don't work when they have the flu I assume you don't want them working if they have Covid.

beauf

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

What if you are happy about having restrictions as to where planes can land but anti covid restrictions?

See it's black and white. It's in favour of any restrictions or none. No middle ground.