Coronavirus - Here come the variants

[Malarkey]

@glenshane

@Malarkey

To see masses of young people gathering recently, when a fair percentage of their parents must have a business affected by lockdown, attests to a terrible failure in communication by the government.

How should the government have communicated the message that young people shouldn’t have the right to free association, in order to save their parents businesses?

“free association” is a leading term – and an abstract term. Besides, lockdown temporarily halted their right to free association.

How? By saying: ‘You might think of the business implications, lads and lassies.’ And so forth.

[the_man_himself]

@Malarkey

To see masses of young people gathering recently, when a fair percentage of their parents must have a business affected by lockdown, attests to a terrible failure in communication by the government.

That is some pile of nonsense

[glenshane]

@Malarkey

You might think of the business implications

I don’t think that would have resonated much

[Malarkey]

@glenshane

@Malarkey

if solving it was relatively easy via established procedures

Solving it? That would be about as realistic as solving the weather

What are you actually arguing, then? Are you saying the whole scenario could have been different, via eschewal of hysteria-influenced sentiment, or that it was all the one, really?

[glenshane]

Telling young people they must lockdown to save their parents businesses from a deadly virus that doesn’t boosts the profits of multinational businesses?
A hard sell.

[Malarkey]

@the_man_himself

@Malarkey

To see masses of young people gathering recently, when a fair percentage of their parents must have a business affected by lockdown, attests to a terrible failure in communication by the government.

That is some pile of nonsense

No, it is not. Ye cannot have it every way. Either this process is an economic disaster, because so many people are affected, or it is not such a disaster at all, because young people are neither medically affected via age nor economically affected via their parents.

Have a think about it all.

[Malarkey]

@glenshane

Telling young people they must lockdown to save their parents businesses from a deadly virus that doesn’t boosts the profits of multinational businesses?
A hard sell.

So, defeatism – and multinationals.

You are not saying what you really believe. But so be it.

[Malarkey]

@iron_mike

You’re being tested tonight kid.

How am I doing…?

[glenshane]

What is it you’re asking?

[Malarkey]

@glenshane

What is it you’re asking?

Whether hysteria was allowed to cost trillions.

A remarkably strange scenario, if so.

[glenshane]

@Malarkey

Whether hysteria was allowed to cost trillions

Absolutely. That’s obvious…there were billions spent on unused field hospitals, ventilators, tracing systems and ppe alone

[the_man_himself]

I’m only after getting into the conversation and haven’t been following but your point there was nonsense. It’s not a government failure of communication that young people are congregating in groups. They could have the best communication possible and young people will still meet their friends after 13 months, as they should

[iron_mike]

@Malarkey

@iron_mike

You’re being tested tonight kid.

How am I doing…?

[Malarkey]

@The_Most_Infamous

@Malarkey

@The_Most_Infamous

1 Vulnerable people are shielding anyway and I’d let the virus run through young people whilst properly protecting the vulnerable.

2 This virus isnt the Spanish flu, generally people who pass from it have at least one if not two or three chronic underlyng illnesses and are in their 80’s.

3 1 know if was elderly, I wouldnt want childrens lives been destroyed for a virus that doesnt effect them.

4 The elderly are shielding anyway. Vaccinate them by all means - if it turns out the vaccines doesnt give them immunity, whats the point for the rest of the population.

1 = not achievable in either ethical or logistical terms. A video game fantasy.

2 = people are not entitled to take on risk for other people, which is effectively what would transpire. You are entitled to play roulette with your health (or with your family’s health, perhaps). You are not entitled to play roulette with anyone else’s health.

3 = children both not being affected and not being carriers, as pointed out just now, is a myth. Inconvenient facts are still facts.

4 = the impact of infection rates on normal society is a far bigger issue than the elderly’s position. You cannot have normal society during a rolling de facto lockdown. I think France had 40,000 new cases on a recent day. If every person infected had five contacts, you have nearly quarter of a million people starting a 14 day lockdown. How is this scenario ‘normal society’?

1, that’s your opinion, I totally disagree. I would say 80% of people don’t even garner a sore throat from this virus if they are youngish and healthy. Debunks the logistics of your point completely.

2, what about the coersion then in relation to vaccine passports? Is that not an unneccessary risk for a healthy child to take who is at pretty much no risk of illness from Covid.

3, From what I can see regarding the impact on Covid for children, young people even middle aged adults who are relatively healthy who have tested positive, its been a minor thing, A good few people have said to me thay they’ve had worse hangovers.

4, I’d personally welcome massive case numbers if the vulnerable and elderly were both vaccinated and shielded properly. The 14 day theory etc etc did not happen in states in the US that have fully opened up.

1 = you are ignoring the moot point. The ‘let it rip’ stuff would see hospitals overwhelmed in a few weeks. There is no way round this point – and it reflects poorly rhat you either ignore this facet or pretend this facet does not apply.

2 = using the word ‘coercion’ is rhetoric. You could take such logic anywhere. You could say speed limits on the road are coercive. The point is whether ‘vaccine passports’, so called, will be proportionate to the situation involved. For anyone, such as myself, who feels ‘let it rip’ is both ethically repugnant and logistically nonsensical, some such passports might be acceptable – might.

3 = you keep eliding the risk to an individual’s health with the logistical disruption caused to normal society by high infection rates. I can only keep noting the elision. A society cannot function normally with high infection rates. This factor has been proved over and over again during the last year and more.

4 = “massive case numbers”… How would the medical services cope? And: the USA has a long way to go yet.

[Malarkey]

@the_man_himself

I’m only after getting into the conversation and haven’t been following but your point there was nonsense. It’s not a government failure of communication that young people are congregating in groups. They could have the best communication possible and young people will still meet their friends after 13 months, as they should

You are not grasping the point. We are in an abnormal situation.

Basically, you have a child’s perspective: ‘I/we should be let do what I/we want.’

[Malarkey]

@glenshane

@Malarkey

Whether hysteria was allowed to cost trillions

Absolutely. That’s obvious…there were billions spent on unused field hospitals, ventilators, tracing systems and ppe alone

Right…

A truly amazing scenario, so.

[glenshane]

The key word is “unused”

[the_man_himself]

Of course we’re in an abnormal situation. However you are in dreamland if you think better government communication would result in young people not meeting up over a year after the first lockdown came into place and a more than 3 month continuous lockdown

[Malarkey]

@the_man_himself

Of course we’re in an abnormal situation. However you are in dreamland if you think better government communication would result in young people not meeting up over a year after the first lockdown came into place and a more than 3 month continuous lockdown

That craic was not what I said. I specified the start of the process, 12 months ago. I also said the ‘bubble’ system might have been tried.

Stoclholm syndrome indeed, as per @iron_mike

[The_Most_Infamous]

Ok, thanks for the detailed reply pal,

To get to the key point here, I’ve given you in broad terms what I think should happen, ie open up similar to the likes of Florida whilst vaccinating and shielding the vulnerable.

Achieve herd immunity naturally that way - I think its very possible and we shouldnt underestimate the human populations immune systems - particularly amongst the vast majority that are young and healthy. We have certainly beaten worse viruses in the past.

What you seem to be suggesting is to put all our eggs in the vaccines basket, I’ll say it again they may very well not be the silver bullet people think, especially when dealing with a respitory virus along with many variants. The big pharma manufacturers are certainly not claiming full immunity on their products.

What do you believe is going to get us out of this mess? Or what should be done differently pal in your view or are the government correct in what they’re doing?