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

[imtommygunn]

I am not really sure what you want as an outcome to your arguments here.

Thinking there is no alternative to once solution does not equal dismissing another.

There are costs to locking down and costs to not locking down.

You accusing people of not considering the implications of lockdown when they think it is the only choice we have is basically the same as other people accusing you of having no consideration for the implications of not having a lockdown. So if people are at fault for "picking" one "side" then equally you are culpable for picking the other.

You do seem to be breaking this down into a binary what football team do you support type argument here.

And yes like franko says surely it's clear it's the bit after the lockdown that is f**ked up to make you need to go back into it...

[Angelo]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.

It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.

So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?

Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?

And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.

[trueblue1234]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.

[Angelo]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.

Picked apart as having no proof? I've outlined it as a worry and people are dismissing it outright without anything to back them up. People have tried again and again on this thread not to countenance the consequences of lockdown, again, again and again. I have said repeatedly that we need to look at the bigger picture not to have Covid Tunnel vision. And here you are dismissing the concerns about lockdown out of hand. Not worthy of discussion?

Do you accept mental health issues as being a worry?
High unemployment rates?
Spiraling national debt?
Impacts of closures and schools on our youth?
Closure of gym, sports facilieties etc on our physical wellbeing and social interaction?
Cancellation of religious services particularly on our elderly and the impact it has on their social interaction?
Rise in domestic violence incidents and the impact of victims?
Supports services available to those with physical and mental disabilities.

These are all matters and groupings that are put in harms way, not by Covid, but by lockdown restrictions.

So rather than dismiss them should we not be having a discussion that lockdown causes more harm than good. Rather than dismiss it, because all I have seen is no willingness to discuss this at all.

We are in a third lockdown, how is it working if we are in a third lockdown. Please tell. We have tried two times before, lockdowns are neither sustainable or effective. How many more do you think we have to go through?

[Franko]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.

It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.

So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?

Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?

And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.

Ah right, so the goalposts have moved now.

Lockdowns only work in *some* places.

[Angelo]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.

It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.

So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?

Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?

And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.

Ah right, so the goalposts have moved now.

Lockdowns only work in *some* places.

Still awaiting you to answer 3 questions I asked earlier.

Seems you have a problem with substantiating your views.

Franko logic - it's ok for a fit and healthy man in his 30s to die from flu, it's not ok for a man in his 40s with an underlying health condition to die from Covid (3 confirmed deaths in the first 6 months of Covid of men in their 40s).

[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?

[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.

[Taylor]

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 is one important point to remember - people generally dont die from flu during the summer.
Unlike Covid

[trueblue1234]

But to be fair

If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?

He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?

The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.

I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.

Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below

"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"

I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.

Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.

There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.

So just wait until the damage is done so?

Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.

No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.

OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.

I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.

There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown.  They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.

Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.

If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?

Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.

Picked apart as having no proof? I've outlined it as a worry and people are dismissing it outright without anything to back them up. People have tried again and again on this thread not to countenance the consequences of lockdown, again, again and again. I have said repeatedly that we need to look at the bigger picture not to have Covid Tunnel vision. And here you are dismissing the concerns about lockdown out of hand. Not worthy of discussion?

Do you accept mental health issues as being a worry?
High unemployment rates?
Spiraling national debt?
Impacts of closures and schools on our youth?
Closure of gym, sports facilieties etc on our physical wellbeing and social interaction?
Cancellation of religious services particularly on our elderly and the impact it has on their social interaction?
Rise in domestic violence incidents and the impact of victims?
Supports services available to those with physical and mental disabilities.

These are all matters and groupings that are put in harms way, not by Covid, but by lockdown restrictions.

So rather than dismiss them should we not be having a discussion that lockdown causes more harm than good. Rather than dismiss it, because all I have seen is no willingness to discuss this at all.

We are in a third lockdown, how is it working if we are in a third lockdown. Please tell. We have tried two times before, lockdowns are neither sustainable or effective. How many more do you think we have to go through?

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.

[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 is one important point to remember - people generally dont die from flu during the summer.
Unlike Covid

So now it matters what time of the year you die in?

Not many people died this summer from Covid either fwiw.

The level of mental gymnastics you guys are showing is unbelievable.

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

Ok to die in the winter, not ok to die in the summer.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Franko]

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