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

A bit like your friend Gupta, how’s she keeping?

Which of those things you listed wouldn’t have happened without restrictions but with a pandemic? Think carefully. Consider it.

What?

FFS

Did you read my post. I answered the same fucking question above.

Just because you have boxed yourself off to an argument you can’t win, you go down this line.

My post was answered specifically in line with the implications of the lockdown. UNIQUELY.

Here it is again.

so if we didn’t lockdown during the pandemic, you think

nobody would be unemployed, no business would close
people who had disabilities and mental health issues/addiction wouldn’t suffer and domestic abuse wouldn’t have happened
schools wouldn’t have closed

this is in the backdrop where there are no restrictions - so cases are left to run rampant. And you think none of the above get affected? And you think I’m delirious

How would schools have been closed if they had not been closed down?

Didn’t say that but it’s now Lockdown 3.0.

Why have the fuckwits that you cheerlead in NPHET and government failed on 3 separate occasions to sort this out? And at what point will they realise their policies have done more damage than good?

with no restrictions eventually the virus numbers become so much that teachers don’t go to work. It’s a highly contagious illness.

When the cases get to high it becomes a covid only approach - which we seen in March - which in hindsight was overboard but pretty much everyone was in agreement that it was needed.

Lockdowns since then are to ensure we don’t go back to a covid only approach and that as much of these services are kept open as possible.

So is flu.

So much so that most winter you have hospital trolleys overflowing with sick patients.

What about a measured approach with reasonable restrictions?

1 Like

Unless you do zero covid it’s the only approach

You’ve said yourself you can’t do zero covid.

the other approach is to try avoid being overwhelmed while rolling out a vaccine. Lockdowns/Restrictions have proven to work when things are bad, reduce social interactions, things get good.

what do you think are reasonable restrictions for the situation we are in now?

Given how opening up things a bit over the Christmas has worked?

If lockdowns and restrictions have been proven to work then why do we keep coming in and out of them.

You are insane, man.

There’s people out there that will call for lockdowns if we have a bad flu season in future. I have a genuine fear that they’ll be listened to too.

2 Likes

why do you need something to work 100%. There is nothing will work 100% while there is a susceptible population.

The goal of lockdowns is to bring the incidence rate of the virus down, which it has achieved on numerous occasions - three in fact. Giving rise to respites in restrictions - which in turn leads to rise in incidence.

I don’t know what you aren’t getting here

you seem to perpetually afraid

“The goal of lockdown”

Yet fuck those vulnerable groups who suffer due to lockdown restrictions, right?

It’s Lockdown 3.0 after the first two failures.

OK, you’re making the decision, right now in Ireland.

Cases are through the roof, all indicators point towards health services being overwhelmed - all of them.

What do you do?

Which countries have introduced what you would consider a “measured approach with reasonable restrictions”?

I’d look at increasing hospital capacity and healthcare staff, getting the vaccine rolled out in a much more expedient manner. Which should have been done back in fucking March but the fuckwits in NPHET and government failed to address again and again and again.

I’d look at realistic restrictions that will not hurt vulnerable groupings that have been completely disregarded under the current and past measure of NPHET and govt.

The real crisis here is not a pandemic crisis, it’s a healthcare crisis brought to you by successive governments who have a dysfunctional, not fit for purpose health service.