You need to look at worst case scenarios over a 30 day period and include ICU capacity of course.
I’ll ask you for the fourth or fifth time, do you not think discussions are happening in our government for the same thing?
Take two shots of Drambuie.
We are all in lockdown so we wont be like Italy in 2-3 weeks. Isn’t that the point of all this? Italy is the place we don’t want to be.
Do you not get why people are being conservative here?
There’s a few lads here that have been on the gravy train all their lives. Probably the first time they’ve ever had someone tell them “No”.
The Scandinavians are mentally weak and also very cold, they don’t care about the dead.
paddy asked to stay at home for 3 weeks and watch netflix or play a jigsaw, he loses his mind
1 Like
Is the opening post of this thread an example of rational thinking that you’re talking about?
Someone saying to let the elderly and vulnerable die.
If that’s your idea of rational thought, you’re a seriously fucked up individual and you’re undermining your own child’s attempts to save the very same demographic.
You should be ashamed of yourself for liking that post
Trump
Trump
Trump
The WHO didn’t have their heads in the sand - that’s a nonsensical fake narrative pushed by right-wing American sources like Fox, Breitbart, One Americ News Network and Gateway Pundit, the sort of sources you get your news from.
You’ve consistently praised these same London academics.
The tool of the dishonest debater, the deliberately loaded question.
Have a look at the figures.
Plenty of reasons, not least the small ICU capacity and lack of testing, also the small matter that the virus is very bad and very contagious and the effect of lockdowns so far appears to be at best moderately successful.
Even if we dont become like Italy, that doesn’t mean we are in a good place. At all.
And for the purposes of this discussion, we do not need to become like Italy. What’s happening is already bad enough.
Mortality rates depend on the healthcare available and on things like population profile.
This outbreak is still in its infancy. People have only started dying in really large numbers on a global scale in the last three or four weeks.
No, the measures that were taken were designed to slow down the rate of infection and not overload the hospitals all at once. None of us have any idea how many were already infected in Ireland before any measures were taken in mid March, it could be 1K, 10K, 100K or a million. At least 50% have no symptoms, and most people have mild to moderate symptoms. Unless you know this number you have no idea of the mortality rate or how serious the threat is.
I think the best way to think about this is it is more lethal than the flu for the elderly and a very small subset of younger people. There are a lot of younger people being hospitalized, but almost all are recovering. The major question is related to the appropriate response, and there you have to be reasonable in your thinking. Is it reasonable to shut down the whole economy until there is no threat of further deaths from COVID-19?
The first question to ask is what number of possibly avoidable deaths are acceptable? Before you explode in anger, we already as a society determine this. We accept several hundred to a few thousand deaths from the flu every year in Ireland (up to 30k in the UK), when many of those deaths could be avoided with the measures we have in place now. Of the number of people who die each year, I believe half could be delayed at least by some kind of preventative measures.
These are valid questions to ask.
1 Like
See, there you go again with more hysteria.
My daughter is doing well, thanks for asking. Putting her health on the line to help old and fragile people, I’m very proud of her.
You don’t actually understand what the opening poster is saying, so maybe step away from the keyboard as you are making an ass of yourself. I think the people who liked his post understand what he is saying, unlike yourself. You seem a seriously dimwitted individual.
2 Likes
What’s he saying so?
It looks to me like he is saying the “experiment” to save old people has failed.
So hes basically saying this isn’t real or a threat.
Is this some kind of cryptic shit that only lunatics can understand or something?
I don’t think you understand what hysteria means
The people who liked the post isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of your thesis
If you don’t know how many have had the virus you don’t know how many people have had the virus and have had no symptoms.
That’s fairly basic stuff.
Take one slug from a can of Tuborg.
It isn’t even remotely close to it
4 Likes
An entire generation of 80 and 90-year-olds have died senselessly?! You’re a gas man. If only they had locked down sooner, old Mrs. Bianchi, despite her underlying medical conditions and her 99 years, could have knocked about for another 20 years.
I see lads at home on Strava going for 2 runs a day and a cycle, how is that a lockdown? aswell as going to shop 3 times a day, there is minor infringement of civil liberties in Ireland
You’re an unmitigated freak, I won’t be engaging with you
1 Like
Well he should answer for himself, but I believe he’s questioning the numbers that people have taken for granted as if they are gospel, like potentially 500k dead in the UK and 2 -3 million dead in the US.
He’s questioning a response that may well result in a global depression that could actually cost millions or tens of millions of lives, in response to a disease that may not be as serious as we are led to believe. Yes, it’s killing older people, but is it killing older people at a rate that’s more than the normal rate of age related mortality?
There are all kinds of moral issues at play here, questioning them does not make one a mass murderer.
4 Likes