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

[trueblue1234]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

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

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

Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.

[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 

You haven't.

Give it a go.

I have comprehensively answered all your questions.

You are just too lazy to read back and find it.

[Angelo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

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

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

Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.

Each lockdown has been unsustainable.

And cases come back bigger and stronger each time.

Rinse and repeat.

So what's the end game? The vaccine?

What then? Cross our fingers and hope it works?

And if doesn't? New strains coming on board? What then?

More lockdowns?

It reminds me of that Fr Ted episode.

"Is there anything to be said for another lockdown?"

[Angelo]

In your own time Franko:

Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?

Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?

Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?

I've already answered these questions 

You haven't.

Give it a go.

I have comprehensively answered all your questions.

You are just too lazy to read back and find it.

No answer was forthcoming. You failed your big audition.

[trueblue1234]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

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

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

Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.

Each lockdown has been unsustainable.

And cases come back bigger and stronger each time.

Rinse and repeat.

So what's the end game? The vaccine?

What then? Cross our fingers and hope it works?

And if doesn't? New strains coming on board? What then?

More lockdowns?

It reminds me of that Fr Ted episode.

"Is there anything to be said for another lockdown?"

I Agree. It's really disappointing we can't manage it with normal restrictions. Thankfully lockdowns have managed to bring things back again. If only we could get the restrictions to manage it right without having to go into lockdown it would be great. But we have proven again and again we can't do that.
New strain = amend the vaccine.

You really want to ignore the fact that it was the period in between lockdowns that failed rather than the lockdowns don't you.

[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 

You haven't.

Give it a go.

I have comprehensively answered all your questions.

You are just too lazy to read back and find it.

No answer was forthcoming. You failed your big audition.

Not my fault you can't read.

[93-DY-SAM]

There is more than COVID deaths here. Hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients who require treatment. Many of these patients will get better, much of this is due to the credit of the medical profession having learned alot about this virus over the last year and the best way to treat it. The side effect of this is it requires people to remain in hospital longer for treatment as they are not dying. COVID patients from a medical point of view are the category that most need immediate treatment. And so the cycle above goes on. Unfortunately this is all to the detriment of cancer treatment, people in need of routine ops and a whole other list of medical needs patients have.

To date the only way to prevent hospitals becoming overwhelmed is to lock people down and prevent the transmission of the virus. There is an alternative, social distancing, wash your hands and wear a mask. But far too many people think they know better and don't follow these guidelines for whatever reason. We all know people who have the virus and going about their daily business as if nothing is wrong. So hence the need for further lockdowns to force people into compliance. It is the lesser of two evils. Social distancing, washing hands and mask wearing won't completely stop the virus spreading but it'll slow it to a point where hospitals can at least cope and the majority of the usual healthcare treatments can go still go ahead to a significant degree.

On the flip side of this most governments have made a complete balls of dealing with this after the first lockdown. They have learned nothing. They have ballsed up track and trace when things were under control to some extent to made it a manageable process. They have ballsed up allowing people into the island without the need to quarantine. Lockdowns are a last resort and an indictment on both those not complying with guidelines and governments (North and South) for their handling of this all.

[armaghniac]

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

Stop posting nonsense. The vaccine, together with a minor boost from better weather and longer days, will mean that the measures can be would down.

[general_lee]

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

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

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

So your solution? Allow people to go back to living normally, allow schools to remain open and all businesses to operate as before. Banish all social distancing guidance and rules. Open up hospitality and back to full capacity. Gigs, concerts, sporting events, let them go ahead.  Act as if the virus doesn't exist. Except it does exist. It means more people in hospitals all year round. It means staff shortages in hospitals because they inevitably have staff self-isolating at any given time. It means an already failing NHS being completely overwhelmed. It means deciding whether the badly mutilated car crash victim gets a bed or is it instead given to the covid patient about to drown due to the amount of fluid in their lungs.

[imtommygunn]

So how many more lockdowns?

What's going to be different with this one?

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

Stop posting nonsense. The vaccine, together with a minor boost from better weather and longer days, will mean that the measures can be would down.

Exactly. Hospitals are f**ked as they stand. Time needs bought for the vaccine. The aim of lockdown is to do this.

That's as simple as it is.

To draw the conclusion that if you think that you think it is ok for people to die from the flu is mind boggling. Not sure how a brain can even think of that conclusion.

[Milltown Row2]

I thought Tony Feron was banned?

[tbrick18]

Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..

In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.

Except this winter that is.

I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?

No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.

In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?

The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions

If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.

I'm talking about facts here.

If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?

It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.

Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?

What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?

Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?

The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.

A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.

But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.

Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.

So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?

If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?

Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?

[Angelo]

Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..

In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.

Except this winter that is.

I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?

No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.

In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?

The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions

If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.

I'm talking about facts here.

If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?

It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.

Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?

What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?

Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?

The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.

A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.

But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.

Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.

So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?

If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?

Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?

So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.

Why don't you go find it.

I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.

Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?

Are you aware of the definition of insanity?

[Milltown Row2]

Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..

In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.

Except this winter that is.

I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?

No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.

In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?

The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions

If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.

I'm talking about facts here.

If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?

It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.

Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?

What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?

Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?

The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.

A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.

But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.

Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.

So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?

If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?

Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?

So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.

Why don't you go find it.

I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.

Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?

Are you aware of the definition of insanity?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein

[Angelo]

Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..

In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.

Except this winter that is.

I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?

No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.

In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?

The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions

If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.

I'm talking about facts here.

If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?

It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.

Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?

What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?

Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?

The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.

A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.

But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.

Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.

So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?

If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?

Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?

So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.

Why don't you go find it.

I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.

Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?

Are you aware of the definition of insanity?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein

We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.

It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.