China Coronavirus

[Angelo]

The cure will do more damage than the disease.

This is the most important thing.

For the majority of young, fit and healthy people, the virus does not seem to carry much of a threat.

People are still spooked by what happened in the first wave.

If we come out of the second wave in the new year and see that the virus fatality rate has dropped all across Europe in double digit multiples, can we then see that the virus is something we can live with.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

[Angelo]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

[imtommygunn]

I asked you about it overwhelming the health sector and you gave me an example of ten years ago? It is not overwhelmed every year?

[Milltown Row2]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

[Angelo]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

[Milltown Row2]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

You answer my question first, I'll answer yous. Let's see how that goes

[restorepride]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

[Angelo]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

No.

I am deadly serious, people who are in their 80s with underlying health conditions have extremely limited life expectancy.

[restorepride]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

No.

I am deadly serious, people who are in their 80s with underlying health conditions have extremely limited life expectancy.

Save it for Niall Murphy's family - dare you to email him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52370667

[Angelo]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

No.

I am deadly serious, people who are in their 80s with underlying health conditions have extremely limited life expectancy.

Save it for Niall Murphy's family - dare you to email him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52370667

Yet we live with seasonal flu.

Throwing victims names about to score points is petty but if you want contrast, a former Tyrone intercounty footballer died of flu a couple of years ago at the age of 34.

So are you advocating the same measures for flu? Lockdowns every winter?

[sid waddell]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

If shielding the elderly cannot be achieved with 1,000 cases per day, how do you think it would be achieved with 10,000 or 15,000 cases a day?

[restorepride]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

No.

I am deadly serious, people who are in their 80s with underlying health conditions have extremely limited life expectancy.

Save it for Niall Murphy's family - dare you to email him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52370667

Yet we live with seasonal flu.

Throwing victims names about to score points is petty but if you want contrast, a former Tyrone intercounty footballer died of flu a couple of years ago at the age of 34.

So are you advocating the same measures for flu? Lockdowns every winter?

We already know from your posts how little human life matters to you.  The GAA community rallied to email support for the Murphy family while Niall fought for his life.   I'm sure they would be interested in your take on things.  Our maybe  you don't want them to hear your morality?

[imtommygunn]

Also there is a flu vaccine hitch helps in avoiding shielding the elderly and most vulnerable.

[Angelo]

I never mentioned herd immunity. I'm for shielding the elderly, implementing the basic measures and trying to get on with things.

At present we have no end game. Lock down for 6 weeks, open up for 2 months and lock down again next March is not a logical, economical or proportionate strategy. The cure will do more damage than the disease.

your first paragraph is not based in reality, it is not possible to protect the vulnerable or shield the elderly and get on with things. We have seen that since the last lockdown as  we now have cases in numerous nursing homes and hospitals filling quickly.

i agree roling lockdowns arent the answer, the only answer to reducing numbers that i can see that worked so far is a lockdown. The question is what should we do differently, what can we do and how good are we are adhering to what we need to do when this lockdown is over to prevent what is happening now happening again.

your last sentence again is a joke and not basd in reality either but id like to know why you think that? Based on what we know so far.

What is based in reality?

The reality at the minute seems to be rolling lockdowns and if the data returns to us in a few months that the fatality rate of this virus is something like 0.4% and most of those who die from it are eldery and/or have underlying health conditions that have limited life expectancy- at what point do we say that  what we are doing is counter-productive?

What does it take for us to look at this differently? We are quite happy to allow seasonal flu overwhelm the health sector every year and take lives.

We had one Lockdown and now less restrictions that the previous lockdown, this isn't even close to last lockdown.. And who is happy with seasonal flu? if they were happy with it they'd save a few million and not bother creating new flu vaccinations every year to hand out for free!

So you'd be happy with elderly parents/relatives with underlying conditions just dying from Covid as its an acceptable death, and you wouldn't even bother with saving them? You've been brought up well I can tell 

Elderly parents and relatives are subject to seasonal flu every season. We don't shut the economy down.

Are you happy for people to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, for the detrimental economic and societal consequences of lockdowns so a virus with a fatality rate of what could be something like 0.4% keeps people who are dying alive a few months longer?

Are you for real?

No.

I am deadly serious, people who are in their 80s with underlying health conditions have extremely limited life expectancy.

Save it for Niall Murphy's family - dare you to email him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52370667

Yet we live with seasonal flu.

Throwing victims names about to score points is petty but if you want contrast, a former Tyrone intercounty footballer died of flu a couple of years ago at the age of 34.

So are you advocating the same measures for flu? Lockdowns every winter?

We already know from your posts how little human life matters to you.  The GAA community rallied to email support for the Murphy family while Niall fought for his life.   I'm sure they would be interested in your take on things.  Our maybe  you don't want them to hear your morality?

I see you don't seem to have an issue with someone dying from flu though? You ignored that so I'll ask you again.

Are you going to advocate for winter lockdowns now to save lives from season flu or is it acceptable risk for people who die from flu?

Do you think lockdowns and restrictions have consequences? If we come into some point next year and we discover that suicide numbers had doubled in 2020, what would be your outlook then?

There are detrimnental effects of the measures taken to curb Covid, but you don't seem to be able to countenance that at all. Maybe you are the person who doesn't seem to value human life?

Save your hysterical outrage and actually start being pragmatic about things? Lockdowns have detrimental societal and economic problems.