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

In Dublin shops that shut in mid-March 2020 had signs up that said 'See you on March 30th'

It was the authorities who initially said that we'd need a two week closure in order to 'flatten the curve'.

At 20 months and being told that massive ICU expansion isn't possible, curve-flattening is clearly quasi-permanent.

Haha! I was waiting for that! I'd actually meant to pre-empt it by adding a comment at the end of my post but I got distracted double checking my figures and sources.

I never said anything about the whether vaccines were or weren't value for money, or the cost to the economy without them, or the lives they save, or anything else. You're blathering on about value for money which isn't remotely relevant to the post you've quoted. Personally I think vaccines are well worth every penny spent on them.

But unsurprisingly, you didn't even bother acknowledging your "mistake", you just instantly pivot to a different topic.

All I did was take your deliberately misquoted figure and clearly demonstrate that it was completely incorrect.

Any legitimate poster would have acknowledged the correction or at least addressed it. You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly shown to be a contemptible liar uninterested in facts or reality who deliberately distorts the truth and deflects when called out on it.

I'm not disputing that it was the government message at the start. It's only here that it's repeated ad infinitum.

I don't recall any claim that they'd be one (or two) and done for ever. Going on the commentary from the get go, I expected annual "boosters". But no one even labels the annual flu vaccine a "booster", even if that's what it essentially is.

come join us , it's fun here .

The recent numbers from ICU and hospitalisation show what a lie the whole scapegoating as been . a mere cover up for incompetence and a scorched earth strategy driven by panic and arse covering. The anti vaccine crowd are not clogging the A&E and the government and their representatives knew this all along.

But then again , the whole "togetherness" vibe has been horsesh1t since the start , a entire campaign of lurching from one scapegoat to the next scrambling to deflect blame from the real source.

I still expected in the medium term the virus to mutate and require further vaccination.

I believe the understanding is a new variant would have to

1. Be more transmissible than delta to out compete it
2. Be less deadly than delta to allow for the host to spread the virus for longer

A more deadly but less contagious variant shouldn't be an issue since it wouldn't take hold or spread fast enough. (thats my understanding of it, open to correction)

By that point any further mutations will be completely endemic and not much harm to the vast majority who have been exposed to levels of immunity/natural recovery.

Like what we saw in Japan. They had high levels of immunity from Sarscov1 years later which might be one of the reasons they barely had any issues. Meanwhile we never had huge Sarcov1 out breaks and as such were much more vulnerable.

Thanks for making my point clear in my last post. You do not believe they are value for money.

So my question to you is the same as it was to that poster before he made it clear he believes they are worth every penny. Do the same costings as I had suggested to him and gives us your figure on the financial benefits of not having vaccines as opposed to having them under the same criteria and then we will be in a better position to see if they are or not.

My point is very clear.

The total cost we spent on this and locking down those who's risk of hospitalisation was no greater than a normal flu (ie the young and healthy) could have been put towards protection the actual at risk and allowing for dedicated care to those people. Specifically the huge number of elderly who were killed by introducing sick patients into care homes.

As for the cost of vaccinating everyone. I don't think the cost is beneficial to the effort.

Same with vaccinating children. It makes no sense since they are at such little risk.

Again don't go making this argumentum absurdum and suggest for a moment that I think nothing should have been done.

I think all of the money we spend paying young healthy people to sit at home until they got vaccinated could have been better spent protecting people who were truly at risk.

Not to mention once the vulnerable and elderly were vaccinated we could have a supply of vaccines to give to the developing world who are going to experience much more death and hardship as a result of the financial impacts of our locks than they would have from covid itself.

The slowing of trade and shut downs across the western world will increase child poverty globally according to the WHO.

Millions more children will die as a result of malnutrition.

Again, to make ourselves feel good about saving granny we inadvertently will end up causing children to die.

Its a global economy. 3rd world getting hit hard. It's okay though we have to jab 12 year old James so he can go on his class trip...

Instead of just passports ^

Meanwhile we think they don't work because they could give a false reading.

Hmm let see. Vaccine pass which doesn't mean you aren't positive or negative...OR an antigen test which could be 75% effective?

TBH my idea would be to have pop up chip van style antigen centres all over major towns and then you pass a 10 minute test and they text you a QR code that allows you to go where you like that day.

1 test, 1 pass, entry for everyone.

Would be much fairer and then it would definitely keep out those who test positive. (if that was your argument for using passes)

It would remove this false idea that you won't catch covid by all being vaccinated indoors.

Its inevitable now

Why on earth are you even comparing here to Slovakia by saying it's inevitable, have you even looked to see their vaccination rate ? 45.3%

Deep breath now and think about it! We are just not in the same boat as many EU countries, on vaccines.

unreal