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

[PadraicHenryPearse]

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.

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

[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.

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?

Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.

For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?

If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.

Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?

I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.

[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

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

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

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?

Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.

For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?

If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.

Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?

I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.

All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?

[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.

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?

Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.

For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?

If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.

Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?

I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.

All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?

They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.

So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.

[trueblue1234]

I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.

Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.

[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

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

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

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?

Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.

For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?

If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.

Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?

I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.

All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?

They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.

So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.

Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?

[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.

your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...

you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...

And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?

Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.

For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?

If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.

Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?

I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.

All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?

They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.

So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.

Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?

We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.

[thebigfella]

We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.

How did that work out in the end?

[imtommygunn]

Let's throw 2 variables into the equation here...

1. winter
2. the london variant

Further to that...
- what was your starting point in the summer?
- how does that compare to your starting point now?

[Angelo]

We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.

How did that work out in the end?

Better for society.

[Angelo]

Let's throw 2 variables into the equation here...

1. winter
2. the london variant

Further to that...
- what was your starting point in the summer?
- how does that compare to your starting point now?

So are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?

The London variant? Let's get this straight, new variant right? The virus mutated, it will probably mutate, again, again and again. So where's the end game here. 30 more years of living through rolling lockdowns? Sustainable?

[clarshack]

thought it was completely irresponsible of that Professor to come out and say that normality may never return.

[imtommygunn]

So are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?

Can you show me where I said that?

Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...

During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.

In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.

There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...

[BennyCake]

thought it was completely irresponsible of that Professor to come out and say that normality may never return.

It won't. It's not meant to.

[Angelo]

So are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?

Can you show me where I said that?

Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...

During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.

In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.

There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...

You seemed to be pointing out it was seasonal. The comment comparing summer and winter.

And the rest of your post even further compares it to winter flu which we can accept 50k excess deaths in a 3/4 month period without batting an eyelid.