Coronavirus - Here for life (In high population density areas)

[Malarkey]

@Tierneevin1979

Did it occur to you at all that the reason most people don’t engage with you, or bother to answer your core question, is that you are unable to debate without losing the rag and throwing toys out of the pram? Maybe if you stopped such childish behavior yourself, you might actually foster a bit of debate or God forbid learn something.

I agree with you on one principle, this is a torturously complex problem. I have read extensively on the ethics of lockdowns, from multiple positions, and there is no consensus on framing the ethics questions well to this point, let alone answer them. Broaden your driving example to see the problem. Every time you or I get behind the wheel, sober, we put others at risk as well as ourselves. There are 40,000 fatalities in car accidents in the US every year, 1.35 million worldwide. Why do vehicle drivers have the right to risk other people’s lives by getting behind the wheel? Why do governments build roads to encourage more driving and ultimately more death? Your overall principle of risk isn’t as simple as you portray.

Now that we have established risking one’s life and other people’s lives is a thing we do routinely, with government encouragement, let’s move on to Covid and lockdowns. I don’t believe western style lockdowns are effective, and that opinion is backed up by actual analytical studies. The attached metastudy looked at 6,068 NPIs implemented in 79 territories or countries, looking at the impact of each intervention on the reproduction rate Rt of Covid.

The results are quite interesting, mass gathering cancellation, small gathering cancellation, quarantine of sick individuals, and border restrictions had the largest effect on Rt. National lockdowns and curtailing individual movement were 1/3 as effective as cancelling gatherings, educating the public and effective communication (not lying or bullshitting) were more effective than lockdowns.

The concept of locking down a healthy population is inherently wrong. The core question for me is what right does the government have to restrict my (or your) personal freedoms? The simple answer is the government only has this right to prevent me doing harm to others. To use an example from another thread, if I am in the habit of randomly assaulting strangers on the street, then I believe the government has the right to take away my freedom.

There is a very tenuous argument for taking away my freedom of movement to prevent me from maybe passing on a respiratory virus to someone else, especially outdoors. It’s a very small risk, much smaller than the risk of either catching or passing on the virus while in a supermarket, something I’m allowed to do. Not to speak of the risk that workers in said supermarket are exposed to on my behalf.

Finally, regarding your comment on Christmas 2020 in Ireland, and 'believing we would be better off now if we had not locked down". Nobody has said that, just like nobody has said let it rip, or go balls out for herd immunity. What we can say however is that in a range of countries that started the most recent lockdowns in November or early December, in late December, or none at all (Finland as we know Sweden upsets people), it made fuck all difference, all had a big surge of cases and deaths in January.

Why? Because it’s January, the worst month for respiratory diseases, because of holidays and people gathered anyway lockdown or no lockdown, and because your government made no attempt to stop people entering the country in their thousands.

Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions | Nature Human Behaviour

Fair enough. Those points, with which I am obviously in severe disagreement, are an attempt at a genuine engagement. I will shortly attempt to answer them all, after a bit of late dinner.

[endakenny]

What’s for dinner

[BruidheanChaorthainn]

Whiskey

[Appendage]

Must be it.

[mickee321]

@Thomas_Brady

Will you bore us with this again tomorrow?

look it’s my opinion

it may bore you for various reasons like im consistent in what i say or maybe you refer to things that you dont agree with or can relate to as boring … I dont know and looks that’s fine but yeah…i think we’re really overcomplicating something really simple ( how to deal with tis vaccine, not the consistency of my meanderimgs btw…)

the covid ship has sailed… let’s move on and start thinking about all of our population and our wellbeing starting by getting kids back at education, allowing sport to reopen for children and getting people back to work.

The over 83s or whatever is the median age of death will need to avoid to us tho for a while- that’s their responsibility as well and lets see how we ride this out… to quote FOTF Luke o neill ( stick granny next to the open window…)

Covid is here… our current MOO of suffocate and breath is clearly not working and is supporting its existence…lets move on… let this thing go and work its way thru and die out once and for all

[Tim_Riggins]

Love it from you. It’s the “I know you are but what am I style” of argument after I called out your Guardian v Telegraph thinking. That other headcase Sid used to do the same, no surprise you two argued with one another off a cliff. It was like a classic Disney death trope for two goons.

[Malarkey]

@Tim_Riggins

Love it from you. It’s the “I know you are but what am I style” of argument after I called out your Guardian v Telegraph thinking. That other headcase Sid used to do the same, no surprise you two argued with one another off a cliff. It was like a classic Disney death trope for two goons.

@Tim_Riggins

Love it from you. It’s the “I know you are but what am I style” of argument after I called out your Guardian v Telegraph thinking. That other headcase Sid used to do the same, no surprise you two argued with one another off a cliff. It was like a classic Disney death trope for two goons.

Call me out…

Dream on.

You have had a remarkably cossetted life, clearly, thinking materialism is virtue. You are a remarkably vulgar person, really. And I really get under your skin because I am so effortlessly smarter. You really do not like that reality.

I used meet quite a lot of ladeens like you in UCD, the 1980s. Ye drank Furstenberg and rattled on about rugby. I had a few little encounters in UCD Bar when I was wearing (UCD) GAA gear. At a certain point, I would just say: “That’s grand, that’s grand… Now introduce me to your sister.”

Silence. The only thing snobs understand is force.

[Malarkey]

@endakenny

What’s for dinner

You.

And a Barolo.

[mickee321]

@Malarkey
I owe you a proper reply which i will get to.
From your musings on here (which are superbly documented by the way and make for very enjoyable reading) it looks to me like you live a very sheltered and sedentary life so may not be equipped with the necessary phenomenology to be able to relate to the concerns of the common man who is supporting a family, trying to educate children, keep a roof over his head and may have grave concerns for loved ones who are alone, depressed and exasperated by this nonsense

[Malarkey]

@Rocko

@briantinnion

@Malarkey

I am talking about ‘risk’ as regards the lights of political philosophy. This whole process is underpinned by certain (political) concepts drawn from certain (philosophical) positions. The OIUTF stuff is essentially drawn from a splice of libertarianism (the state must be minimized, on principle) and utilitarianism (economic considerations must override consideration of the vulnerable). The lockdown imperative is essentially drawn from John Rawls’ social contractualism. These terms might sound abstract but they actually have been highly agent over the last ten months or so in the various debates.

Core question: why do you feel you have the right to take on risk for me? This query is what the core issue looks like, shorn of posturing. Where is your right to do so?

Of course there are different kinds of risk. Medical risk varies, depending on someone’s standing and age. Economic risk varies, depending on an individual’s occupation. But these kinds of risk are subservient to the overall principle of ‘risk’.

… Wood drastically – Wood ‘drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’ You got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

This might just be the greatest thing you’ve ever done in your life.

Actually a re-release. He is a one hit wonder.

[glenshane]

Just looking at the bbc propaganda bulletin. As glenshane predicted they’re expressing great relief that the vaccine can be future proofed, tweaked etc to cope with emerging strains.
For any reasonably astute person its actually incredible how a slight majority of people buy into this shit.

[TheUlteriorMotive]

They’ve used all the tools of the great propagandists now amplified by social media. Fear, social isolation, ridicule, canceling.

The Emperor has no clothes

It’s fascinating to see the reaction since vaccines were approved. Multiple vaccines after multiple trials. The medics and the media refusing to acknowledge the solution exists and this is going away.

[iron_mike]

[Ralphie]

The Govt rep on Matt Cooper looking fairly unsure

His defence to lack of mandatory quarantine to people flying back from their holidays was “there us a 500 euro fine”

[glenshane]

And dancing nurses…

[TheBlackSpot]

@glenshane

As glenshane predicted …

Ah, just wonderful! You’ve got to the “speaking in the third person thing”. Pure class Sur! You’ve been building to this very nicely and I commend you for your timing.

[glenshane]

Oh lord it’s hard to be humble etc

[iron_mike]

[glenshane]

People call me the Bri-Man

[iron_mike]

Have you met the whole gang?