Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[imtommygunn]

Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.

Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.

Well it's ok to die from flu due to no lockdown? Isn't it? We accept it every year.

The whole basic tenet of your argument is a contradiction.

We had 2,101 deaths in Jan 2018, primarily believed to have been down to a virulent flu strain - should we have locked down from Nov/Dec?

You are claiming I am arguing something I am not so the premise of your argument is completely flawed.

[Angelo]

In your own time Franko:

Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?

Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?

Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?

I've already answered these questions 

You haven't.

Give it a go.

[Angelo]

Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.

Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.

Well it's ok to die from flu due to no lockdown? Isn't it? We accept it every year.

The whole basic tenet of your argument is a contradiction.

We had 2,101 deaths in Jan 2018, primarily believed to have been down to a virulent flu strain - should we have locked down from Nov/Dec?

You are claiming I am arguing something I am not so the premise of your argument is completely flawed.

So should we lockdown every winter for seasonal flu? Yes or no.

[imtommygunn]

 

That has got nothing to do with anything here. Nothing.

What's the point? Are you trying to pretend you're clever by trying to send leading questions to people in the hope they will eventually answer to prove something you have said?

You have continually came up with the wrong conclusion of what people's arguments are. Continually. Then you have called them idiots for making the argument you said they did and they didn't even make.

What if I say yes? What does that mean?

What if I say no? What does that mean?

Nonsense.

[trueblue1234]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

[Angelo]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.

I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.

We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.

How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?

[trailer]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.

I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.

We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.

How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?

You keep saying Lockdowns don't work. But you aren't in charge of deciding if they do or not. It's like saying this car doesn't work when you're looking to drive on water. Patriot.

[Angelo]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.

I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.

We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.

How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?

You keep saying Lockdowns don't work. But you aren't in charge of deciding if they do or not. It's like saying this car doesn't work when you're looking to drive on water. Patriot.

Interesting you ran away last time around when you made an idiot out of yourself.

[trueblue1234]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.

I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.

We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.

How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?

No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops. 

[Angelo]

In your own time Franko:

Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?

Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?

Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?

There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.

There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.

[trailer]

In your own time Franko:

Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?

Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?

Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?

There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.

There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.

Go and get it, Patriot.

[Angelo]

But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.   

As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept  - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?

You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona  3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.

So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.

Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.

Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.

Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.

Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.

There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.

All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.

One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.

We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?

No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.

So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?

Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.

I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.

We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.

How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?

No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.

They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.

Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?

[Angelo]

In your own time Franko:

Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?

Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?

Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?

There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.

There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.

Go and get it, Patriot.

No reason to, fascist.

[Angelo]

That has got nothing to do with anything here. Nothing.

What's the point? Are you trying to pretend you're clever by trying to send leading questions to people in the hope they will eventually answer to prove something you have said?

You have continually came up with the wrong conclusion of what people's arguments are. Continually. Then you have called them idiots for making the argument you said they did and they didn't even make.

What if I say yes? What does that mean?

What if I say no? What does that mean?

Nonsense.

Why can't you answer it.

You have defended lockdowns on the basis that you believe peolpe will die if we don't.

Every winter hundreds and thousands of excess deaths come via the way of Winter flu? But you don't care enough about that to support a lockdown.

I'm having a problem squaring off your contradictions you see?

Ok to die from flu, not ok to die from Covid.

[imtommygunn]

How have I defended lockdowns? Where? Lockdowns are awful - everyone knows that.

Ok to die from flu, not ok to die from Covid.

Not one person on this thread has said this. Not one.

2 plus 2 equals?

It seems to equal something different in your world as you have drawn conclusion after conclusion on my arguments and various others that are just wrong.

[Edit] I also forgot to say, again, that once again you have boiled this down to deaths and deaths alone which is missing a significant part of the story.