Relaxation of Restrictions, Part X *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

He peddles lies for money and it has been quite lucrative apparently.

Again don't give him money.

And yet you can't point to one of his lies on that video?

monkeybutter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Perhaps you can point out where he was incorrect or inaccurate?

Or are you going to take the word of an Oceanographer just because RTE put him on the telly?

lay the fat facts out for us here so we don't have to watch his youtube channel make sure to adblock youtube by the way

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

And yet you can't point to one of his lies on that video?

Seriously of all the absolute spoofers to link to, you picked out the ace.

Captain_Crash

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Where are CSO saying there were no excess deaths at all due to covid?

Excess mortality for between March and September is estimated to be between 876 and 1,192 deaths

Okay that's a lot lower than the reported covid death toll for that period but I wouldn't call it 'no excess deaths'

It was linked earlier in the thread, I’m sure a quick google search should find the graphs and data if you wanna check them out, I’m on mobile now so not in a position to find it. But it’s somewhere in this thread if you have the time to look

gozunda

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint”. Why is that OK?

Oh ffs. Still don't understand eh? Because it's not just about deaths. It's about keeping the rate of infection low while we roll out the first ever vaccination programme for covid-19 to prevent people getting seriously ill in the first place.

And if that doesn't do it- I truely can't help you my friend. :rolleyes:

And just one thing Not me ranting and raving about going on about going 'to a pub' 'for a pint' cos you don't understand why we have restrictions.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Yes I want pubs open. I wanted them open last summer, I want them open now. ...

And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

Silentcorner

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Where are CSO saying there were no excess deaths at all due to covid?

Excess mortality for between March and September is estimated to be between 876 and 1,192 deaths

Okay that's a lot lower than the reported covid death toll for that period but I wouldn't call it 'no excess deaths'

We did get an increase in April on account of the surge that hit us in March...which as we know took out a lot of frail and elderly people with serious illnesses...we had a very tame year between May - Dec....so overall we didn't see much or any excess death in 2020.

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

Seriously of all the absolute spoofers to link to, you picked out the ace.

And yet you can't point out any of his so called spoof in the video I linked?

Just because you are pious in who you listen to doesn't make you right!!!

monkeybutter

Silentcorner wrote: »

We did get an increase in April on account of the surge that hit us in March...which as we know took out a lot of frail and elderly people with serious illnesses...we had a very tame year between May - Dec....so overall we didn't see much or any excess death in 2020.

this is due to lockdown perhaps it is best to compare this to what is currently happening in India, what happened in the US and what happened in the UK

Silentcorner

monkeybutter wrote: »

lay the fat facts out for us here so we don't have to watch his youtube channel make sure to adblock youtube by the way

You want me to spoon feed you?

But you'll take the word of an oceanographer without question ..... because he is on the telly!!!

FlubberJones

gozunda wrote: »

But when you do go to that pub - remember you will be tearing a "family apart with grief because you “wanted a pint. Hope you can live with yourself....

THIS IS A JOKE, SURELY?

If it's not the persons own family, at this stage, why should they care? I certainly won't... if you or this mysterious "family torn apart in grief" have vulnerable family members... stay away from pubs and people and isolate yourself....

Loafing Oaf

Silentcorner wrote: »

so overall we didn't see much or any excess death in 2020.

So no actual cited data? I'll just have to take your word for it I suppose...

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

And yet you can't point out any of his so called spoof in the video I linked?

Just because you are pious in who you listen to doesn't make you right!!!

I didn't watch his video, he is a verifiable grifter stealing money from the weak minded, why in the name of fúck are you watching and spreading his dangerous nonsense?

DO NOT GIVE HIM MONEY!!

His perpetual lies are debunked here, in a humorous way.

https://twitter.com/WrongAgainIvor

Silentcorner

monkeybutter wrote: »

this is due to lockdown perhaps it is best to compare this to what is currently happening in India, what happened in the US and what happened in the UK

Perhaps indeed!!!

I'll telly you what I won't do...I won't rely on any Irish media outlet to inform me of what is happening anywhere...they have been shoving unbalanced content down our gobs for over a year.

monkeybutter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Perhaps indeed!!!

I'll telly you what I won't do...I won't rely on any Irish media outlet to inform me of what is happening anywhere...they have been shoving unbalanced content down our gobs for over a year.

you have the facts?



why wont you release them?


are you part of the conspiracy?


what have you against bob ballard?

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

ah here - you've taken complete leave of your senses at this stage..

this type of hysterical crap serves no purpose

OwenM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Please justify the morality of ever going to a pub or visiting an elderly loved one again, knowing for a fact that as a direct result of this, people will die. I don’t think you can.

A family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint”. Why is that OK?

You are reducing the immorality to a single act, going to the pub and that's not valid.

Lots of other things we do spread the virus, should we stop doing all those things because someone will die? Forever? No more rugby, hurling, dancing, concerts? Christmas dinner with the extended family is now 'immoral'?

Communicable diseases have always and will continue to be a major cause of death, it's just a fact of life. Mortality from covid will soon be very small and we are not acting immorally by claiming back parts of our lives as the numbers improve, this includes going to the pub.

You don't wear a pioneer pin by any chance?

lawred2

OwenM wrote: »

You are reducing the immorality to a single act, going to the pub and that's not valid.

Lots of other things we do spread the virus, should we stop doing all those things because someone will die? Forever? No more rugby, hurling, dancing, concerts? Christmas dinner with the extended family is now 'immoral'?

Communicable diseases have always and will continue to be a major cause of death, it's just a fact of life. Mortality from covid will soon be very small and we are not acting immorally by claiming back parts of our lives as the numbers improve, this includes going to the pub.

You don't wear a pioneer pin by any chance?

With these people the simple act of going outside is too much for them.

Best not engaging.

Sharpyshoot

Is there a date for outdoor hospitality yet?

Silentcorner

Boggles wrote: »

I didn't watch his video, he is a verifiable grifter stealing money from the weak minded, why in the name of fúck are you watching and spreading his dangerous nonsense?

DO NOT GIVE HIM MONEY!!

Ha ha haaaaa....

Boggles you called him a spoofer/grifter/ etc....what you mean is that he is a blasphemer!!!

I don't pay anyone or any media organisation for content...

And you'll take the word of an Oceanographer without question!!!!

Doctor Jimbob

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ha ha haaaaa....

Boggles you called him a spoofer/grifter/ etc....what you mean is that he is a blasphemer!!!

I don't pay anyone or any media organisation for content...

And you'll take the word of an Oceanographer without question!!!!

It's not often I agree with Boggles on this thread but in fairness Ivor Cummins is a grifter and a spoofer.

Boggles

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ha ha haaaaa....

Boggles you called him a spoofer/grifter/ etc....what you mean is that he is a blasphemer!!!

Is he? I have no problem with that.

I do take issue with him stealing money off the simple minded in exchange for lies.

Anyway I linked to where his "science" is routinely debunked.

Sure give it a read or not.

Up to you.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Oh ffs. Still don't understand eh? Because it's not just about deaths. It's about keeping the rate of infection low while we roll out the first ever vaccination programme for covid-19 to prevent people getting seriously ill in the first place.

And if that doesn't do it- I truely can't help you my friend. :rolleyes:

And just one thing Not me ranting and raving about going on about going 'to a pub' 'for a pint' cos you don't understand why we have restrictions.



And when you do go to that pub as you have already stated - remember you believe a "family will be torn apart with grief because you “wanted a pint.

Hope you can live with yourself....

This is the very act of goalpost-moving though which has been an irritating, and indeed harmful, feature of both government policy and general discourse.

To say that the justification for lockdown is to keep infections low while the vaccine is rolled out is just a narrative plucked from the sky -- either for convenience or by way of selective amnesia. It bears no resemblance to the narrative upon which lockdown was enforced and maintained over a long term. Lockdown was brought in to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and a simultaneous almighty surge of death and suffering (to the tune of many thousands of excess deaths). This is what spurred people to comply with it, this is what spurred national support for the necessity of it.

Lockdown was never just about keeping infections low or preventing death and suffering outright -- it was about preventing infections to such a degree that they would cause the collapse of the healthcare system and death on a tremendous scale. The necessity and proportionality of each of the ongoing restrictions cannot and should not be measured by reference to it all being about keeping Covid low while vaccines are rolled out -- they are to be measured on whether they are actually preventing a collapse of healthcare and tremendous levels of death.

If the government is taking this new narrative, they are effectively saying that lockdown is now ongoing to make the vaccine intiative easier to manage rather than the original and (on paper) far more lockdown-commensurate risk thatbthe health service would collapse. As I've said before, this means that the same extreme measures of suppression of rights are being used to mitigate a much less extreme permutation than what lockdown was based and justified on.

gozunda

darem93 wrote: »

My little sister is delighted with herself today as she goes off to get her hair done in the North.Meanwhile down South we have our leaders leaking the most vague soundbites that come to the top of their heads. "Ye might be able to get your haircut in May, sure we'll just see, ye just need to hold firm a few more weeks!!"

Its nearly like the North has something that we haven't got to the same stage as of yet ....

I wonder what that might be ...

Oh yeah - vaccinations!

Jfc...

thebaz

More hysteria from the media - This time from the Irish Times - who have mostly been ok - They headline about AZ clot issues , yet vaccines are proved to be far far leas dangerous than virus , which is on the increase . In other articles they highlight the damage done to young people by the whole lockdown.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-state-regulator-reports-serious-clotting-events-linked-to-astrazeneca-jab-1.4545183

And then to compound a bad Friday , they report (rightly) that NIAC are delaying ther decision on Johnson vaccine until next week. Typical HSE bureaucracy , while the virus is destroying India, we have to wait another week, where is the urgency ? the country has been in lockdown for nearly a full year, people want and need to start living.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This is the very act of goalpost-moving though which has been an irritating, and indeed harmful, feature of both government policy and general discourse.

To say that the justification for lockdown is to keep infections low while the vaccine is rolled out is just a narrative plucked from the sky -- either for convenience or by way of selective amnesia. It bears no resemblance to the narrative upon which lockdown was enforced and maintained over a long term. Lockdown was brought in to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and a simultaneous almighty surge of death and suffering (to the tune of many thousands of excess deaths). This is what spurred people to comply with it, this is what spurred national support for the necessity of it.

Lockdown was never just about keeping infections low or preventing death and suffering outright -- it was about preventing infections to such a degree that they would cause the collapse of the healthcare system and death on a tremendous scale. The necessity and proportionality of each of the ongoing restrictions cannot and should not be measured by reference to it all being about keeping Covid low while vaccines are rolled out -- they are to be measured on whether they are actually preventing a collapse of healthcare and tremendous levels of death.

If the government is taking this new narrative, they are effectively saying that lockdown is now ongoing to make the vaccine intiative easier to manage rather than the original and (on paper) far more lockdown-commensurate risk thatbthe health service would collapse. As I've said before, this means that the same extreme measures of suppression of rights are being used to mitigate a much less extreme permutation than what lockdown was based and justified on.

Again you are over thinking it.

We are basically doing what has been proven to work.

Vaccinate, ease restrictions, prevent another wave of misery.

If you have a better idea tap it out.

Constantly moaning isn't going to achieve anything.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This is the very act of goalpost-moving though which has been an irritating, and indeed harmful, feature of both government policy and general discourse.
To say that the justification for lockdown is to keep infections low while the vaccine is rolled out is just a narrative plucked from the sky -- either for convenience or by way of selective amnesia. It bears no resemblance to the narrative upon which lockdown was enforced and maintained over a long term. Lockdown was brought in to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system and a simultaneous almighty surge of death and suffering (to the tune of many thousands of excess deaths). This is what spurred people to comply with it, this is what spurred national support for the necessity of it.
Lockdown was never just about keeping infections low or preventing death and suffering outright -- it was about preventing infections to such a degree that they would cause the collapse of the healthcare system and death on a tremendous scale. The necessity and proportionality of each of the ongoing restrictions cannot and should not be measured by reference to it all being about keeping Covid low while vaccines are rolled out -- they are to be measured on whether they are actually preventing a collapse of healthcare and tremendous levels of death. If the government is taking this new narrative, they are effectively saying that lockdown is now ongoing to make the vaccine intiative easier to manage rather than the original and (on paper) far more lockdown-commensurate risk thatbthe health service would collapse. As I've said before, this means that the same extreme measures of suppression of rights are being used to mitigate a much less extreme permutation than what lockdown was based and justified on.

Arthur

You do understand that things can change yes? That we now have vaccines- well before any original estimate as to their development. And yes we have restrictions to keep numbers low so we can get those vaccines administered and reduce the number of people who do get seriously ill in the long run? And yes before we had vaccines - restrictions were also there to keep down the rate of infection so as to help our health services cope with treating those who did get ill and who needed specialist care and treatment. Do you understand any of that? Or do you also have your head proverbially stuck permanently in the sand?

Because once we have people vaccinated- we can all get on with returning to life as normal without restrictions. Its that simple.

But nah - something something "suppression" of my rights - bastards - shakes fist - and etc

Edit. Sorry Boggles. You just bet me to the conclusion

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

Again you are over thinking it.

We are basically doing what has been proven to work.

Vaccinate, ease restrictions, prevent another wave of misery.

If you have a better idea tap it out.

Constantly moaning isn't going to achieve anything.

You are underthinking it.

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others? We know that the flu causes hundreds of deaths each year. We have had basically no flu deaths since the start of lockdowns. Isn't this a good thing? How can you morally justify opening restaurants back up, for example, when you know for a fact it will directly lead to flu deaths?

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

You are underthinking it.

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others? We know that the flu causes hundreds of deaths each year. We have had basically no flu deaths since the start of lockdowns. Isn't this a good thing? How can you morally justify opening restaurants back up, for example, when you know for a fact it will directly lead to flu deaths?

There is a vaccine for the flu take it if you are worried about your morality.

What the flu has to got to do with Covid I have no idea.

Now we have very effective vaccines for Covid, again avail when you get the opportunity, for your morals like and other stuff.

gozunda

FlubberJones wrote: »

THIS IS A JOKE, SURELY?If it's not the persons own family, at this stage, why should they care? I certainly won't... if you or this mysterious "family torn apart in grief" have vulnerable family members... stay away from pubs and people and isolate yourself....

Not mine btw. Simply directly quoting the poster who came up with the idea. The same poster who apparently wanted pubs opened last summer. Go figure.

lawred2 wrote: »

ah here - you've taken complete leave of your senses at this stage..this type of hysterical crap serves no purpose

Lol. Nope again as said - simply quoting the poster who seems a bit at odds with themselves about wanting to go the pub and yet who believes he is killing people where he does so. Hence the quotation marks. But yes as you said...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

There is a vaccine for the flu take it if you are worried about your morality.

What the flu has to got to do with Covid I have no idea.

Now we have very effective vaccines for Covid, again avail when you get the opportunity, for your morals like and other stuff.

So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?

If it's because Virus B kills fewer people than Virus A, which I assume is the reason, then what is the number of deaths per year that is acceptable in the name of normality? If the answer is "I don't know" or you won't answer, then your view is based on nothing but feelings, even more so than the anti-lockdown/pro-liberty view.

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?

You still using deaths as the single metric for gauging this pandemic 13 months in? I mean at this stage, that is very silly isn't it? And pretty irksome.

Also Are all viruses equal?

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

You still using deaths as the single metric for gauging this pandemic 13 months in? I mean at this stage, that is very silly isn't it? And pretty irksome.

Also Are all viruses equal?

Yes. Ultimately that's what we're trying to avoid here, right? Contacts, which lead to cases, which lead to deaths. Hospitalizations, which directly or indirectly lead to deaths. Overwhelmed healthcare systems, which lead to delayed or cancelled treatments, which lead to deaths.

The only reason we're talking about this virus is because of its potential to cause deaths, directly or indirectly.

"So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?" Would love to hear your justification.

Silentcorner

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's not often I agree with Boggles on this thread but in fairness Ivor Cummins is a grifter and a spoofer.

Look..he may well be...I am not familiar with how he makes a living.

But take a look at that video and point out where he was wrong?

gozunda

francogarbanzo wrote: »

So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?

If it's because Virus B kills fewer people than Virus A, which I assume is the reason, then what is the number of deaths per year that is acceptable in the name of normality? If the answer is "I don't know" or you won't answer, then your view is based on nothing but feelings, even more so than the anti-lockdown/pro-liberty view.

I believe that was already well answered francogarbanzpo

Btw how's that pub going dilemma thing going for you? You know where you simultaneously want to go to the pub whilst believing you are killing people doing so?

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Yes. Ultimately that's what we're trying to avoid here, right? Contacts, which lead to cases, which lead to deaths. Hospitalizations, which directly or indirectly lead to deaths. Overwhelmed healthcare systems, which lead to delayed or cancelled treatments, which lead to deaths.

The only reason we're talking about this virus is because of its potential to cause deaths, directly or indirectly.

"So you're willing to support the suppression of basic liberties to prevent deaths due to Virus A, but are perfectly willing to accept the "normal" deaths due to Virus B. How is this a morally or logically consistent view at all?" Would love to hear your justification.

I think you just justified you own musings. Fair play. Obviously you would add chronic on going sickness to that.

Also there was a second question in my post that you must have missed.

Also Are all viruses equal?

francogarbanzo

gozunda wrote: »

I believe that was already well answered francogarbanzpo

Btw how's that pub going dilemma thing going for you? You know where you simultaneously want to go to the pub whilst believing you are killing people doing so?

Where was it answered? I've read nothing but deflection and hand waving.

Obviously my point flew over your head there. I'm not the one calling for the opening or visiting of pubs to be illegal, so my view is consistent. People die due to people going to pubs, and also pubs shouldn't be illegal. Not now, not last year, and not "after covid".

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

I think you just justified you own musings. Fair play. Obviously you would add chronic on going sickness to that.

Also there was a second question in my post that you must have missed.

So then, if your view is consistent, when our hospital beds are full during the next bad flu season, it'd be moral or at least pragmatic, to institute a lockdown to prevent further deaths.

No, not all viruses are equal.

gozunda

Akesh wrote: »

This is a myth. You do not know that. Perhaps when you come down from that high horse, you might want to consider the impact that variants will have. A vaccine isn't a silver bullet solution. There will be mutations that the vaccine may or may not be effective against. People will also refuse the vaccine. It's very clear that a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. It's amusing watching some people pretend that they are some kind of expert, ridiculing others while making a completely oversimplified arguments and mocking people for protecting their rights.

Eh who's speculating exactly?

A myth he says!

Ah better tell the scientists that.

But chrst we have people posting here losing their melt everytime a variant is mentioned on the media and we get weeks worth of comments such as 'de variants" and comments along the line that they've only come up these 'variants" to keep us locked up!

And then the self same 'variants' are simultaneously being used to hit people over the head with because variants exist and therefore vaccines won't work!

But I'm no expert btw - just a regular poster with some common sense apparently. A rare thing around here it would appear

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

So then, if your view is consistent, when our hospital beds are full during the next bad flu season, it'd be moral or at least pragmatic, to institute a lockdown to prevent further deaths.

I didn't give a "view" you did, I just highlighted it.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

No, not all viruses are equal.

Oh goody, so some ones, like the ones that cause once in a lifetime pandemic may need some mitigation, correct?

Stormyteacup

Boggles wrote: »

You still using deaths as the single metric for gauging this pandemic 13 months in? I mean at this stage, that is very silly isn't it? And pretty irksome.

Also Are all viruses equal?

So why are restrictions in place currently?

Lots of opinions, but two prevalent similar arguments;

A. Keeping infections low in case of sudden surge due to variants/massive socialising to ensure health services aren’t overwhelmed, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

B. To prevent people getting seriously ill or dying, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

You can have some of A and some of B if you like, however after restrictions are lifted, you can prevent people getting seriously ill or dying from common viruses by always wearing a mask, keeping contacts low as possible, not travelling very far etc.

So how many people who are patting themselves on the back for preventing illness and death by following every nonsense restriction and nodding along with government, will, once vaccination rollout is complete, happily discard the mask, book a holiday and head to their favourite restaurant?

That’s the hypocrisy. If you’re argument is A - fine, it’s ridiculously over-cautious and disproportionate, considering the damage done, but that’s just imo.

Boggles

Stormyteacup wrote: »

So why are restrictions in place currently?

Lots of opinions, but two prevalent similar arguments;

A. Keeping infections low in case of sudden surge due to variants/massive socialising to ensure health services aren’t overwhelmed, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

B. To prevent people getting seriously ill or dying, until vaccination hits sweet spot.

You can have some of A and some of B if you like, however after restrictions are lifted, you can prevent people getting seriously ill or dying from common viruses by always wearing a mask, keeping contacts low as possible, not travelling very far etc.

So how many people who are patting themselves on the back for preventing illness and death by following every nonsense restriction and nodding along with government, will, once vaccination rollout is complete, happily discard the mask, book a holiday and head to their favourite restaurant?

That’s the hypocrisy. If you’re argument is A - fine, it’s ridiculously over-cautious and disproportionate, considering the damage done, but that’s just imo.

Huh?

It's hypocritical to take a vaccine and return to normality?

Are you against that?

gozunda

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Where was it answered? I've read nothing but deflection and hand waving. Obviously my point flew over your head there. I'm not the one calling for the opening or visiting of pubs to be illegal, so my view is consistent. People die due to people going to pubs, and also pubs shouldn't be illegal. Not now, not last year, and not "after covid".

Go back and read the bit about vaccinations. You must have missed it. You know the bit referred to before you came up with the beautiful piece of logic deflection that you believe going to pubs will kill people - whilst you simultaneously demand the right to go the pub!

And btw I haven't called for the opening or visiting of pubs to be made illegal at all.

You really are quite mixed up francogarbanzo

landofthetree

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1385345257622147073

Look at Israel. Once you get over 50% of adults vaccinated you should be opening up almost everything

Stormyteacup

Boggles wrote: »

Huh?

It's hypocritical to take a vaccine and return to normality?

Are you against that?

Maybe give it another read?

Boggles

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Maybe give it another read?

I did twice.

So if I take a vaccine and get back to living pre pandemic I'm a hypocrite?

That was the sum of your post, correct?

That going forward no deaths are acceptable all risk has to be eliminated and if you don't subscribe to that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite?

Lets be honest, that is great big pile of dripping contrarian horse shít isn't it?

Listen, vaccines going in to arms, things are opening up.

It will end, chin up.

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

I did twice.

So if I take a vaccine and get back to living pre pandemic I'm a hypocrite?

That was the sum of your post, correct?

That going forward no deaths are acceptable all risk has to be eliminated and if you don't subscribe to that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite?

Lets be honest, that is great big pile of dripping contrarian horse shít isn't it?

Listen, vaccines going in to arms, things are opening up.

It will end, chin up.

You've had plenty of opportunity to refute it, why don't you? Can you?

Stormyteacup

Boggles wrote: »

I did twice.

So if I take a vaccine and get back to living pre pandemic I'm a hypocrite?

That was the sum of your post, correct?

That going forward no deaths are acceptable all risk has to be eliminated and if you don't subscribe to that you are a morally bankrupt hypocrite?

Lets be honest, that is great big pile of dripping contrarian horse shít isn't it?

Listen, vaccines going in to arms, things are opening up.

It will end, chin up.

Yes am looking forward to it. I’m comfortable with resuming normal life knowing that viruses will continue to circulate and people will die because of that.

Just wondering how all the heroes currently saving lives masking up going into supermarkets will make their peace with it.

Boggles

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Yes am looking forward to it. I’m comfortable with resuming normal life knowing that viruses will continue to circulate and people will die because of that.

Just wondering how all the heroes currently saving lives masking up going into supermarkets will make their peace with it.

Do you not go into supermarkets?

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

You've had plenty of opportunity to refute it, why don't you? Can you?

You missed another question. In your own good time.

Oh goody, so some ones, like the ones that cause once in a lifetime pandemic may need some mitigation, correct?

Bare with me, there is method here.

We will get your answers, trust me.

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

You missed another question. In your own good time.



Bare with me, there is method here.

We will get your answers, trust me.

OK I'll bite. Yes, I agree some viruses justify some mitigation measures.