Poor auld @anon78624367 needs a cuddle.
You’re hysterical. If a two year old was carrying on like you are, they’d be given a time out.
You seem to have a major issue with the opening post here, and indeed the entire thread. Let me give you the “Duplo” version. The lockdown is a precautionary approach that is focused only on health. There is, however, a duty of care on Governments to apply precautionary approaches in matters relating to the economy. There is an argument, which I believe is correct, that the precautionary approach is more applicable to the economy because economic destruction is a certainty, whereas the data on death is pointing to a lower probability of coronavirus being as bad as they say it is.
I am not denying that coronavirus kills people, but I think it is very important for you to understand the following: old people die. Every day.
5 Likes
You’re avoiding the question. If you cannot rationally think about the question and give a reasoned response you shouldn’t be in this thread.
Why don’t the lives of the hundreds of people who die from the flu each year in Ireland matter to you? If they mattered to you, you would be calling for a strict lockdown to avoid infecting these people. And yes, it could absolutely be done.
4 Likes
And in fairness as a counterbalance, Signapore are moving closer to a lockdown to slow things.
People die from diseases that aren’t a global pandemic. The health care system creaks along.
The people that die from seasonal flu at least get the chance to fight with a reasonably operational health system.
An unmitigated spread of this virus breaks the health service and people who otherwise would have lived, will die.
That’s as rational as it gets. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you
There are measures outside of ‘lock it down ta fuck’ that mitigate the deadly spread
Not every healthcare system is worst case scenario like Italy
You’re avoiding the question re flu deaths - est. 290k people died from flu in 2019. A society lockdown would have prevented many of those deaths. Do you not have the same compassion for those people? Is 290k deaths the magic number where all is ok to continue?
These are the lads that if they were in the trenches their own army would do them in because they’d be such pains in the hole.
If I had compassion for everyone that died I’d be crippled with depression.
Those people die with a fighting chance in a somewhat functioning health care system.
Italy isnt a singularity. Looks at France and Spain, New York even.
That’s the reality of failed measures. Why take the risk?
Do you think almost every country in the World has gone into lockdown unnecessarily?
No one is arguing with you that measures should not have been taken to slow down the rate of infection and protect hospitals from overload, that’s a straw man you have invented.
What is being argued is what is the appropriate response now, several months into this pandemic started and millions are not dead. Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Norway and many other countries have not become Italy, like you have been predicting for the last month.
I think the 2/3 week lockdown was prudent and necessary to get a handle on the situation and wait for more data. Absolutely the right decision.
The data now suggests the virus is much less deadly than what happened in Italy suggests along with what the Imperial college was modelling. Yet people are still calling for this lockdown to continue for months or ‘whatever it takes’ for this virus to run its course. I think that’s madness.
4 Likes
I haven’t been predicting anything for the last month. That’s your straw man
The reason we are in these measures is because we don’t want to become like Italy. That’s what I’ve been saying.
Do you think almost every government in the World has overreacted on the back of advice from scientific experts to the global threat? If so, why?
If there isn’t a continued threat, what’s your theory for continued lockdown and disruption?
Ireland is not Italy
Spain, France, New York.
Italy isnt a singularity.
People are trying to understand the virus more, the cautious approach based on actual empirical studies is the most prudent one.
Relaxing measures too soon and then having to reimplement them would be very damaging too
I’ve heard a couple of commentators (not ger canning or Ryle nugent) say we can survive a 3 month ‘lockdown’ economically. We’ve enough in the bank and could borrow enough to sustain it. That would probably bring us up to mid June.
I think every western government totally failed to recognize the seriousness of the threat, and many had to overreact like Italy and Spain. Shutting down an economy is unprecedented and has serious consequences, some of which we haven’t even started to see yet.
I have no issue with the measures taken up to now in Ireland, I think they are by and large appropriate. The question is when is the right time to start lifting restrictions, allow people go back to work, while still doing everything possible to protect the vulnerable from infection. It’s a balance but it has to be done. It’s insane to be talking about 6 to 12 month lockdowns, given what we know of the disease.
2 Likes
Who’s talking about 6-12 month lockdowns? Is this another one of those arguments you think you’re having?
Some on here have said that’s what’s needed, until a vaccine is found. It’s not all about you.
1 Like
Plenty have said it, that is complete lunacy, now is the time for clarity of thought and rational thinking
3 Likes
Well you’re responding to me. You could have contexualised that point in your post.
Sorry mate.