Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

Happydays2020

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I've a 96 year old grandmother living a good life in her own home in South Dublin.

If I found out that members of my family brought her to the airport and got on a long haul flight with her to Barbados, I'd ransack their homes while they were away.

Whether it was her idea or not

Why would you want to turn to crime?

polesheep

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Wtf is the problem with that exactly?

Nobody should be going on holiday right now. It's ****ing mental.
Captain Tom shouldn't. My nan shouldn't. I shouldn't. You shouldn't.

T e l l i n g

D.Q

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Why would you want to turn to crime?

Thinks he's judge, jury and ransacker.

TonyMaloney

D.Q wrote: »

You would ransack their homes hahaha

How is that in anyway a rational response to anything?

do you have any idea how mental you sound?

Completely undermines any of your contributions on this forum. You're clearly hysterical and incapable of thinking about this rationally.

I may have been exaggerating.

Put please, continue with your assessment of my psychological state on the basis of that quote. It's really a fascinating insight. You're obviously very intelligent.

spookwoman

Some people here need to be hireed for HSE track and tracing. Seem to be able to sniff out over the net how someone got covid.

ZX7R

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Wtf is the problem with that exactly?

Nobody should be going on holiday right now. It's ****ing mental.
Captain Tom shouldn't. My nan shouldn't. I shouldn't. You shouldn't.

Captain Tom went on holidays and it was within the restrictions in place at the time for his area of his country.
If the restrictions allow he should he did .

Beechwoodspark

polesheep wrote: »

I think you'll find that having lived for 100 years he is quite capable of making that decision himself. Far too many people seem to think they have the right to make decisions for older relatives during the pandemic.

Once captain Tom was fine with the risk work away

call me mad but possibly it would have been better to wait until he had the vaccine. Family should’ve known that, bucket list be damned.

Beechwoodspark

prunudo wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether he was in the prime of his life or not, we're not supposed to flying around the world on holiday.
I don't care how much money he raised, we all have to abide by the rules and do the right things.

+1. Crazy decision to bring a 100 yr old geriatric to Barbados for a ....holiday.

When instead they could’ve waited a short time and got the vaccine then work away. Too late now.

polesheep

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Once captain Tom was fine with the risk work away

call me mad but possibly it would have been better to wait until he had the vaccine. Family should’ve known that, bucket list be damned.

Agreed, but it was his decision to make.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Once captain Tom was fine with the risk work away

call me mad but possibly it would have been better to wait until he had the vaccine. Family should’ve known that, bucket list be damned.

No, it's worse than that.

As an elderly person and as someone vaunted for charity collection during COVID-19, he is the very last person who should be holidaying abroad.

It sends a message to the rest of the population that holidaying is a-okay - after all, if Captain Tom can do it without criticism, so can the rest of us - including the elderly!

Look at where he is today - and how that message could have led to many others in hospital today.

Whether you like it or not, having a public face makes a difference to people's decision making.

And the decision of Captain Tom to go on holiday to some degree discredits the "good" that he did walking around his garden for charity collection purposes.

podgeandrodge

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Why would I be angry at family members for risking the life of my grandmother?

They'd only be risking the life of your grandmother if they forced her to go. Assuming she is still capable of independent thought, they are not guilty, and certainly don't deserve their house being ransacked

TonyMaloney

ZX7R wrote: »

Captain Tom went on holidays and it was within the restrictions in place at the time for his area of his country.
If the restrictions allow he should he did .

He's extremely vulnerable. In tier 2 the vulnerable were supposed to avoid all non essential travel.

So no, they weren't acting within the spirit of the restrictions at all.

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, it's worse than that.

As an elderly person and as someone vaunted for charity collection during COVID-19, he is the very last person who should be holidaying abroad.

It sends a message to the rest of the population that holidaying is a-okay - after all, if Captain Tom can do it without criticism, so can the rest of us - including the elderly!

Look at where he is today - and how that message could have led to many others in hospital today.

Whether you like it or not, having a public face makes a difference to people's decision making.

And the decision of Captain Tom to go on holiday to some degree discredits the "good" that he did walking around his garden for charity collection purposes.

Fully agree. You’d wonder what the thought progress was. Maybe pressured by the family to go. God knows. Just a pity they didn’t hold out for a few more weeks so he could get the vaccine.

podgeandrodge

spookwoman wrote: »

Some people here need to be hireed for HSE track and tracing. Seem to be able to sniff out over the net how someone got covid.

Track and ransacking.

TonyMaloney

podgeandrodge wrote: »

They'd only be risking the life of your grandmother if they forced her to go. Assuming she is still capable of independent thought, they are not guilty, and certainly don't deserve their house being ransacked

She, like the captain, is not capable of going to Barbados on her own.

It doesn't come down to what they might decide. They require assistance, which means the decision is ultimately for someone else to make.

Beechwoodspark

The thought process boggles the mind

“Hey let’s bring our geriatric 100 year old frail grandad to.....the bahamas...in the midst of a savage pandemic...for....a holiday!?”

Ffs like.

Just a bit heartless that the family weren’t looking out for his best interests at this time

podgeandrodge

TonyMaloney wrote: »

She, like the captain, is not capable of going to Barbados on her own.

It doesn't come down to what they might decide. They require assistance, which means the decision is ultimately for someone else to make.

Whoa hold on a minute. Just because someone might need assistance to enable them carry out a decision, does not make that decision someone elses to make.

D.Q

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I may have been exaggerating.

Put please, continue with your assessment of my psychological state on the basis of that quote. It's really a fascinating insight. You're obviously very intelligent.

You're cruisin for a ransacking with those passive aggressive comments.

TonyMaloney

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Whoa hold on a minute. Just because someone might need assistance to enable them carry out a decision, does not make that decision someone elses to make.

I didn't say it was.

My nan could decide to go to Barbados tomorrow. But without assistance that decision is essentially meaningless. I mean she couldn't even book the flight.

Ultimately it comes down to the decision of the family. And they made a horrible one.

IrishHomer

Can anyone clarify please regarding restrictions,

Is it ok to travel 100km to visit a grave?

podgeandrodge

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The thought process boggles the mind

“Hey let’s bring our geriatric 100 year old frail grandad to.....the bahamas...for....a holiday!?”

Ffs like.

Just a bit heartless that the family weren’t looking out for his best interests at this time

You are assuming that the family forced him to go. You are assuming it wasn't his decision. Just because he was 100 did not necessarily make him incapable of making his own decisions. You're portraying him as having no independent thought in your example.

spookwoman

British Airways and Visit Barbados organised the trip.

podgeandrodge

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Whoa hold on a minute. Just because someone might need assistance to enable them carry out a decision, does not make that decision someone elses to make.

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I didn't say it was.

My nan could decide to go to Barbados tomorrow. But without assistance that decision is essentially meaningless. I mean she couldn't even book the flight.

Ultimately it comes down to the decision of the family. And they made a horrible one.

You did. And you're doing it again.

Jim_Hodge

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's not get distracted. The original question is left unanswered - whether anyone is privy to the knowledge of how many under-35s have been unfortunate enough to have died with the virus over the entire duration of the pandemic?

I think it would be illuminating to know the answer to this question, not least perhaps because many, if not most, posters here are probably under the age of 35 years.

I think you're wrong on every count there. Age out of context tells you nothing. Age is immaterial as it's a life lost regardless. Your definition of elderly is obviously in cloud cuckoo land. And the under 35s are hardly the predominant age group here.

Are those over 35 not also unfortunate to have died?

runawaybishop

spookwoman wrote: »

British Airways and Visit Barbados organised the trip.

Doubt they are organising extra hospital care for him. Another bed taken up needlessly.

TonyMaloney

D.Q wrote: »

You're cruisin for a ransacking with those passive aggressive comments.

You're confusing sarcasm with passive aggression.

Look, I've never ransacked a house in my life. Some of the gafs I lived in during my twenties may have appeared to have been ransacked, but I assure you that was just the way we liked it.

spookwoman

runawaybishop wrote: »

Doubt they are organising extra hospital care for him. Another bed taken up needlessly.

Nothing to say he got covid in Barbados.

TonyMaloney

podgeandrodge wrote: »

You did. And you're doing it again.

I live in a world where you don't have to act on every mad idea an elderly relative might have.

What planet do you live on?

ZX7R

TonyMaloney wrote: »

He's extremely vulnerable. In tier 2 the vulnerable were supposed to avoid all non essential travel.

So no, they weren't acting within the spirit of the restrictions at all.

Teir 2 at the time of his travel vulnerable could travel and could also travel with there support bubble, so not only were they acting within the rules they acted within the spirit as you say.

runawaybishop

spookwoman wrote: »

Nothing to say he got covid in Barbados.

It's reckless. Every seems to think their reason is valid.