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

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

[Franko]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

[trueblue1234]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

[Franko]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

Nope.  Wrong again.

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

[Milltown Row2]

We are all going to die, that's a given, how quickly we die is down to a lot of factors, some are pre disposed others we bring on ourselves and some is just rotten luck.

Catching Covid will speed things up for some that have underlying conditions, and the elderly, speeding it up can be avoided and ultimately avoiding and shielding is the way forward for this group, but that doesn't mean that the virus will go away and not have an effect on the aged/sick people, as the people looking after them have lives outside of the homes they attend, so its not a given to just lock them up.

The lockdowns are designed to reduce the hospital intake, that's it, nothing more nothing less.  It has done that as the hospitals, while desperately at breaking point haven't crumbled.

As for the economy, yes its taken a hit, business have floundered jobs lost, that's been worldwide, not just here on this island.
mental health issues, people had metal health issues before covid and they will have them after covid. As far as I'm aware there has been services available, but limited through phone calls, face time and so on, visits have been restricted, because of the virus.

Hospitals are cancelling ops because of staffing levels and the redirection of staff. Mother in-law waiting on open heart surgery.. been in week before xmas and no sign of surgery in Belfast, was offered Dublin Blackrock but consultants are still trying to arrange something here, its a critical op but no availability as yet. Its not like they don't want to do it, and they are not standing around scratching their toys.

I've yet to see a plan other than the NZ one that will allow us to be in a better places, that's a government thing, and it has failed miserable, and everyone is in agreement on that.

But this line of people are not dying of covid or because of covid is wearing thin, other than being hit by a bus and finding out they had covid within 28 days of that happening, that's not a death by covid, so we can take out those stats.

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

Nope.  Wrong again.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

[trueblue1234]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

[Franko]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

Nope.  Wrong again.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

[Angelo]

We are all going to die, that's a given, how quickly we die is down to a lot of factors, some are pre disposed others we bring on ourselves and some is just rotten luck.

Catching Covid will speed things up for some that have underlying conditions, and the elderly, speeding it up can be avoided and ultimately avoiding and shielding is the way forward for this group, but that doesn't mean that the virus will go away and not have an effect on the aged/sick people, as the people looking after them have lives outside of the homes they attend, so its not a given to just lock them up.

The lockdowns are designed to reduce the hospital intake, that's it, nothing more nothing less.  It has done that as the hospitals, while desperately at breaking point haven't crumbled.

As for the economy, yes its taken a hit, business have floundered jobs lost, that's been worldwide, not just here on this island.
mental health issues, people had metal health issues before covid and they will have them after covid. As far as I'm aware there has been services available, but limited through phone calls, face time and so on, visits have been restricted, because of the virus.

Hospitals are cancelling ops because of staffing levels and the redirection of staff. Mother in-law waiting on open heart surgery.. been in week before xmas and no sign of surgery in Belfast, was offered Dublin Blackrock but consultants are still trying to arrange something here, its a critical op but no availability as yet. Its not like they don't want to do it, and they are not standing around scratching their toys.

I've yet to see a plan other than the NZ one that will allow us to be in a better places, that's a government thing, and it has failed miserable, and everyone is in agreement on that.

But this line of people are not dying of covid or because of covid is wearing thin, other than being hit by a bus and finding out they had covid within 28 days of that happening, that's not a death by covid, so we can take out those stats.

Mental health problems have been exasperated during Lockdowns, the same with domestic violence incidents, addiction relpases etc. These people need supports they cannot access during lockdowns are just a mere example of some of the issues. You seem to be kind of flippant to some of those groupings there, an "ah look, they always had mental health issues" kind of approach to an enviroment which now compounds matters. As Covid might trigger people with underlying health conditions and their situation to worsen, so to will lockdowns and people with mental health issues, people with physical and mental disabilities, people in abusive relationships.

But these people and their needs and their requirements have been ignored and put in the backseat to combat Covid.

Similarly we do know seasonal flu kills and causes serious health implication for the elderly and with underlying health conditions. What I can't accept is the two faced approach of people getting hysterical about the consequences of Covid while shrugging at a virulent flu seasons two years ago that had 50k excess deaths alone in the UK, as if it was nothing?

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

Nope.  Wrong again.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

Can you answer the question?

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

[Franko]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

More squirming, and no answers.

More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.

Make your case.

Why won't you answer the question?

You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

I think you'll find your question is already answered.

And you're still avoiding the question.

Nope.  Wrong again.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

2 things;

1.
Your question involves trying "something else".  So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is.  You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course".  So you need to explain what that means in reality.  This is the bit where you are struggling badly.  If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with.  As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.

2.
I asked first.

So go ahead... take the floor

How does this virus "run its course"?

Can you answer the question?

Lol

See above.

[trueblue1234]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.

The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.