When will it all end?

ujjjjjjjjj

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Fair enough, never heard that nickname of his tbh. LOl town i live in 90% of people have nicknames but most of them are quite witty and clever anyway point taken

Fair play, no harm done !! Love the Irish ability to have a nickname for pretty much anyone and anything.

Coillte_Bhoy

See, just leave aside the deaths for a moment, how do the 'open it up' crew ( and im not necessarily opposing that) suggest we deal with the inevitable pressure on the health service?

Parachutes

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi everyone
This is my first post but I’ve actually been following this thread since it started and I have a few observations I’d like to share.
I’ve been struck by the varying opinions on both sides of this argument, and I have to say I find some are very surprising.
Personally, I can see validity on both sides. I think we can all accept that restrictions were/are necessary in order to bring the levels of infections down, which is happening, but very slowly, creating a real sense of “what’s the point of it all” for many. I think there needs to be a real discourse on the fact that it is simply not possible to save every single life. People die everyday, it’s not pleasant and it’s not pretty but it’s life. One thing I can thank this pandemic for is that I am actually no longer afraid of dying, because living as we are, is not a decent life. We’re alive, but we are certainly not living.
The reality is, that the death rate as a result of covid is so very low, and high only among the vulnerable.
I really resonated with the poster talking about how they had become bitter lately, as I have too. I am 30, single, I live alone and work from home. I have no social life, no chance of finding a partner, creating a family, advancing my career and travelling outside Ireland which is a real bugbear for me. I am growing an attitude of “to hell with the vulnerable” lately, and I don’t like it, but I think a lot of people are starting to think the same. Not all lives are equal, and putting my life on pause to ensure an older person gets what, 2/3 more years of life is not an equitable trade. I don’t know, maybe being alone all the time is seriously starting to affect me mentally but this isn’t a good attitude to have. Im not so sure people will be able to tolerate much more of this and to be quite honest, I’m thinking civil disobedience will be a guarantee after Easter. Normally I wouldn’t be an advocate of that either, but I’m not so sure anymore.
The reality is these rolling lockdowns are going to create many more problems than anyone in government can anticipate.
I think that once the over 70s and those with underlying conditions are vaccinated we should absolutely open everything. We have an economy to support and it’s the only way to sensibly get back to some semblance of normality.

The UK are in the worst recession in their history since the 'Great Frost' of 1709. Worse than WW1, worse than WW2, nearly double as bad as the crash in 2009. I'm in a similar situation as yourself and all I can say is hysteria has taken over. Something has got to give soon, people will not accept this anymore once the vaccine rollout is in full swing.

Coillte_Bhoy

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Fair play, no harm done !! Love the Irish ability to have a nickname for pretty much anyone and anything.

And me, nobody that knows me at all calls me by my real name, and i actually think plastic sheeting is quite good, but mehole and leak not so much

Coillte_Bhoy

Parachutes wrote: »

The UK are in the worst recession in their history since the 'Great Frost' of 1709. Worse than WW1, worse than WW2, nearly double as bad as the crash in 2009. I'm in a similar situation as yourself and all I can say is hysteria has taken over. Something has got to give soon, people will not accept this anymore once the vaccine rollout is in full swing.

Maybe but what if there are new mutations and variants that the vaccines are ineffective against? I mean we just dont know so i can see why the Govt are being overly cautious after being a bit cavalier pre Xmas

ujjjjjjjjj

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi everyone
This is my first post but I’ve actually been following this thread since it started and I have a few observations I’d like to share.
I’ve been struck by the varying opinions on both sides of this argument, and I have to say I find some are very surprising.
Personally, I can see validity on both sides. I think we can all accept that restrictions were/are necessary in order to bring the levels of infections down, which is happening, but very slowly, creating a real sense of “what’s the point of it all” for many. I think there needs to be a real discourse on the fact that it is simply not possible to save every single life. People die everyday, it’s not pleasant and it’s not pretty but it’s life. One thing I can thank this pandemic for is that I am actually no longer afraid of dying, because living as we are, is not a decent life. We’re alive, but we are certainly not living.
The reality is, that the death rate as a result of covid is so very low, and high only among the vulnerable.
I really resonated with the poster talking about how they had become bitter lately, as I have too. I am 30, single, I live alone and work from home. I have no social life, no chance of finding a partner, creating a family, advancing my career and travelling outside Ireland which is a real bugbear for me. I am growing an attitude of “to hell with the vulnerable” lately, and I don’t like it, but I think a lot of people are starting to think the same. Not all lives are equal, and putting my life on pause to ensure an older person gets what, 2/3 more years of life is not an equitable trade. I don’t know, maybe being alone all the time is seriously starting to affect me mentally but this isn’t a good attitude to have. Im not so sure people will be able to tolerate much more of this and to be quite honest, I’m thinking civil disobedience will be a guarantee after Easter. Normally I wouldn’t be an advocate of that either, but I’m not so sure anymore.
The reality is these rolling lockdowns are going to create many more problems than anyone in government can anticipate.
I think that once the over 70s and those with underlying conditions are vaccinated we should absolutely open everything. We have an economy to support and it’s the only way to sensibly get back to some semblance of normality.

Thanks for posting this. It really is time for some adult discussion on this and a balance has to be struck. Unfortunately like so many things now arguments become black and white and polarised. Life is grey and compromise is grey.

This virus is going nowhere.

ujjjjjjjjj

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

And me, nobody that knows me at all calls me by my real name, and i actually think plastic sheeting is quite good, but mehole and leak not so much

Entirely agree Plastic Sheeting is a goodie, mehole and leak are pretty average !!

Anyone got s smarter one for Mehole and Leo the Leak ??

Sorry excuse the light relief here folks but bloody hell I think we could do with it at the moment.......apologies mods.

ujjjjjjjjj

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Thanks for posting this. It really is time for some adult discussion on this and a balance has to be struck. Unfortunately like so many things now arguments become black and white and polarised. Life is grey and compromise is grey.

This virus is going nowhere.

Thanks to you and Parachutes for the replies.
Yeah I agree, this is definitely going to be endemic and again, the balance has to be hit somewhere between protecting people from this and the effects of this, the latter I believe being much worse.
Cutting half the middle management of the HSE and reinvesting the money into hiring staff who actually work might just help a bit with pressure on the health system. And not to mention the fact that we are going to have the most expensive children’s hospital in the world and it’s not even finished yet.

Parachutes

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Maybe but what if there are new mutations and variants that the vaccines are ineffective against? I mean we just dont know so i can see why the Govt are being overly cautious after being a bit cavalier pre Xmas

How long would you suggest locking down for then? Till covid is completely eliminated? It's pie in the sky thinking, we won't have a country left at that stage. Between vaccines and the virus circulating in the general population we will achieve herd immunity. We have to learn to live with new mutations.

Richard Hillman

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

See, just leave aside the deaths for a moment, how do the 'open it up' crew ( and im not necessarily opposing that) suggest we deal with the inevitable pressure on the health service?

Lockdown for over 70s until vaccinated and everyone else gets on with life. They can't be turning up to pubs, restaurants and non essential retail.

They owe us a couple of months. We gave up a year to protect them

Atlantic Dawn

I really don't know anymore when it will end, my hopes at the moment are with the UK leading the way out of this and getting back to relative normality first. If this is a success the pressure will be on our government to follow.

ujjjjjjjjj

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I really don't know anymore when it will end, my hopes at the moment are with the UK leading the way out of this and getting back to relative normality first. If this is a success the pressure will be on our government to follow.

I think there are some encouraging signs in the UK where they are seeing reductions in over 85's being hospitalised and the thought there is that they are seeing early signs of vaccine success. Matt Hancock also making nosies about living with the virus and with vaccines and new treatments getting it down to flu like levels of hospitalizations and deaths (that being in a good flu year....).

Signs that things are moving towards an end game.

Look it is line in the sand stuff and where you draw it is the only game in town now for any sane and balanced discussion on this.

Over 70' and open up, over 50's and open up or every adult and open up. And I mean open up fully.

Talk of zero covid and long term restrictions is just impractical and fantasy land.

I think ultimately the question has to be asked - what it our pain point ?

What is the level of hospitalizations and deaths that is acceptable and where does this mean the line in the sand is drawn. That for me is it.

Bear in mind vaccines are never 100% perfect and some people won't take vaccines so it is impossible to entirely get rid of this virus, it's endemic now.

franciscanpunk

The precedent set so far won't allow for much opening unfortunately.

Like we're trying to completely shut off the country based on fear of importing virus mutations(fair enough) but it could be years before full vaccination reaches the rest of the world and it will go on so long more mutations will happen - so how can allow international in the next 5 years say based on the actions we've taken to date.

Also, lets not forget we still had large sections of society with mass restrictions last summer with single digit cases in a day last summer. we are now testing north of 100,000 per week. to get a day in single figures based on this positivity rate would need ro be around 0.1%, its prob in 6-8% region at the minute! Fantasy stuff to think restrictions wont drag on for many many years without public interference

franciscanpunk

It won't end without mass protests which wont happen until the economy starts to take a hit, wont notice this year as significant losses already built into this years budget

Coillte_Bhoy

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Lockdown for over 70s until vaccinated and everyone else gets on with life. They can't be turning up to pubs, restaurants and non essential retail.

They owe us a couple of months. We gave up a year to protect them

Wow, just ****ing wow. Anyway are you going to answer my question please as to how we protect the health service?

Real Donald Trump

Construction, Schools, Non essential retail should be opened right now. hundreds are aloud in a supermarket at once yet the rest are closed, it makes zero sense. Meehole needs to grow a pair!

hatrickpatrick

Lockheed wrote: »

I'm just asking this because I don't know, even if things get better what is wrong with social distancing? I love the fact that you don't have clueless gob****es breathing down your neck all the time when queuing or waiting for something. Why do people want to stand closer to other people? Isn't that all SD is..

I take it you're already in a relationship or you're asexual then? Because I've yet to hear anyone propose how anyone single is supposed to meet someone and date under social distancing. Well and good for you if you're in a bubble but touch starvation is hell for those who aren't and have been isolated in this manner for almost a year.

That's a huge part of this which nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge. Young, single people are f*cked. There was an article just this week about how young women are starting to worry about biological clocks in the context of social distancing being touted as some kind of long term "new normal" - how do you suggest people shack up in an era in which you're not supposed to get within two metres of anyone outside your family, ever?

That's the reason this long term doom mongering is f*cking with people. It's a ridiculous elephant in the room which nobody seems willing to acknowledge. The world is now divided into people who have an intimate partner in their covid bubble and people who don't, and for the latter category, the lack of any kind of hope is soul destroying. Spending a year talking to people on Tinder or Bumble and saying "we'll go for a pint or coffee and see how things go once we're allowed to meet strangers again" and having that become some kind of mystical, disappearing end game is massively f*cking with people.

If someone isn't in your bubble and you get within 2m of them, technically you've broken the rules. So if you meet up with someone from a dating app and your urges get the better of you and you end up kissing, you've now broken the rules. The rules say you can't do that. And in the absence of social venues being open and being able to talk to strangers without breaking the rules, apps are now the only way to even tentatively make a plan with someone to begin with.

In other words, if you've been single since March, either you've broken the rules or you haven't intimately touched another human being since then. And we're being told this is a long term reality? That simply isn't going to work, for anyone.

That's why social distancing is so despised. Humans are a sexual species and expecting people to abstain en masse from intimacy unless they were already with someone when all this started is simply insane the longer this situation goes on. That's why we need an exit strategy, and a better one than "we might just do social distancing for five years".

agoodpunt

All good news is the UK looks like they have an end game.

while mehole could will have his poorly run HSE advised continuous lockdown disrupted

reform hse now they will always be playing catch up long after this covid emergency

we also now know lockdowns work to remove bodies on trolleys in A and E so npet will scare us with the help of media for as long as possible

stefanovich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I take it you're already in a relationship or you're asexual then? Because I've yet to hear anyone propose how anyone single is supposed to meet someone and date under social distancing. Well and good for you if you're in a bubble but touch starvation is hell for those who aren't and have been isolated in this manner for almost a year.

That's a huge part of this which nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge. Young, single people are f*cked. There was an article just this week about how young women are starting to worry about biological clocks in the context of social distancing being touted as some kind of long term "new normal" - how do you suggest people shack up in an era in which you're not supposed to get within two metres of anyone outside your family, ever?

That's the reason this long term doom mongering is f*cking with people. It's a ridiculous elephant in the room which nobody seems willing to acknowledge. The world is now divided into people who have an intimate partner in their covid bubble and people who don't, and for the latter category, the lack of any kind of hope is soul destroying. Spending a year talking to people on Tinder or Bumble and saying "we'll go for a pint or coffee and see how things go once we're allowed to meet strangers again" and having that become some kind of mystical, disappearing end game is massively f*cking with people.

If someone isn't in your bubble and you get within 2m of them, technically you've broken the rules. So if you meet up with someone from a dating app and your urges get the better of you and you end up kissing, you've now broken the rules. The rules say you can't do that. And in the absence of social venues being open and being able to talk to strangers without breaking the rules, apps are now the only way to even tentatively make a plan with someone to begin with.

In other words, if you've been single since March, either you've broken the rules or you haven't intimately touched another human being since then. And we're being told this is a long term reality? That simply isn't going to work, for anyone.

That's why social distancing is so despised. Humans are a sexual species and expecting people to abstain en masse from intimacy unless they were already with someone when all this started is simply insane the longer this situation goes on. That's why we need an exit strategy, and a better one than "we might just do social distancing for five years".

Robots is the answer. Read brave new world for a taster.

stefanovich

agoodpunt wrote: »

All good news is the UK looks like they have an end game.

while mehole could will have his poorly run HSE advised continuous lockdown disrupted

reform hse now they will always be playing catch up long after this covid emergency

we also now know lockdowns work to remove bodies on trolleys in A and E so npet will scare us with the help of media for as long as possible

Bad news is SA variant is taking hold.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not all lives are equal, and putting my life on pause to ensure an older person gets what, 2/3 more years of life is not an equitable trade.

Whatever about thinking restrictions should be lifted, this is a disgusting attitude.

All lives are equal, that's the whole basis of your human rights.

Anyone that thanked this should be ashamed.

pconn062

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Wow, just ****ing wow. Anyway are you going to answer my question please as to how we protect the health service?

The government have had a year to figure out how to protect the health service, and we, the public, have largely done our part by being forced our of work, closing our businesses (some permanently) and staying away from family and friends. So far they the government have done sweet f all. It's easier to blame the public for flouring restrictions than actually try and tackle the issue. Plus I don't know if you know this but the health system gets overwhelmed every year (apart from this year). Every winter we have 500 or 600 people stuck on trolleys unable to get beds, it's called the winter flu season. And that's before we even mention Tony and the governments reckless and careless treatment of nursing homes.

SnuggyBear

bubblypop wrote: »

Whatever about thinking restrictions should be lifted, this is a disgusting attitude.

All lives are equal, that's the whole basis of your human rights.

Anyone that thanked this should be ashamed.

You seriously think an 85 year olds life has the same value as an 18 year olds life?

SnuggyBear

SnuggyBear wrote: »

You seriously think an 85 year olds life has the same value as an 18 year olds life?

You dont?
You think people are not equal?
Where would you draw the line?

stefanovich

SnuggyBear wrote: »

You seriously think an 85 year olds life has the same value as an 18 year olds life?

You don’t value wisdom obviously. Disgraceful statement.

SnuggyBear

bubblypop wrote: »

You dont?
You think people are not equal?
Where would you draw the line?

Of course I don't. Has an 85 years old death ever been described as tragic?

The HorsesMouth

SnuggyBear wrote: »

You seriously think an 85 year olds life has the same value as an 18 year olds life?

Put that into context now.

You're saying our presidents life is not worth the same as for e.g some 18 year old scrot who wants to live out a life on the dole and play drug lords for the rest of his life.

SnuggyBear

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Put that into context now.

You're saying our presidents life is not worth the same as for e.g some 18 year old scrot who wants to live out a life on the dole and play drug lords for the rest of his life.

OK so your saying the presidents life is more valuable? Aren't all lives equal?

The HorsesMouth

SnuggyBear wrote: »

OK so your saying the presidents life is more valuable? Aren't all lives equal?

Where did I say they weren't equal?

SnuggyBear

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Of course I don't. Has an 85 years old death ever been described as tragic?

Where do you draw the line?
What age do you believe people's lives mean less then others?


And yes, actually, there have been many deaths of older people described as tragic. Ever hear of old people being murdered? Or killed in road traffic collisions? If course, all deaths are tragic for those left behind.