“We just need to craic on”

Mackem DJ

Mackem DJ

Striker
I’ve heard quite a few people say this recently re the Pandemic. It may be a coincidence but it’s usually been from people who have recently had Covid & brushed it off easily. I feel it’s turning into some kind of cliché.

Today i heard someone whose been scared stiff of covid for two years, then caught it and shrugged it off state, “we can’t go on like this”.

Anyway, does anyone know what this actually means? I realise we have been under threat of restrictions (which didn’t really materialise) and have had the massive inconvenience of putting a mask over our face when shopping, if you can be bothered. Barring that, what do we really need to “just craic on” with exactly?

I speak first hand in saying that I appreciate travel abroad isn’t as easy. There are also many of companies and establishments that are either seeking to rip people off or provide a shit level of service citing the pandemic as an excuse.

We can’t see Dr’s face to face anymore as the NHS is in an absolute state, we can’t rely on the 999 service for the same reason and hospitals are still full of unjabbed morons meaning routine operations are being put back.

What does “craicing on now” mean for people and how do we realise their aspirations of life having “craiced on”?

This isn’t a loaded question. I’m keen to know what peoples visions are like.
 


Probably the same people who despite being told over and over again thst it’s not one and done when you get it and that you can catch it multiple times are shocked when they find out the hard way.

Likely the same people who think vaccines are a cure that stop you catching COVID despite the countless efforts to tell people it doesn’t it just helps to try and stop you from dying.
 
Kenna said:
Probably the same people who despite being told over and over again thst it’s not one and done when you get it and that you can catch it multiple times are shocked when they find out the hard way.

Likely the same people who think vaccines are a cure that stop you catching COVID despite the countless efforts to tell people it doesn’t it just helps to try and stop you from dying.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it’s just a pure coincidence people catch covid then adopt a cavalier attitude trotting out a “craic on” cliche ( I dont really know what it means tbh).
 
parm said:
for me its going back to life in January 2000 - you cant defeat viruses

we should have put money into protecting vunerable and financing nhs and just got on with it , life as normal
Click to expand...
Wish I could do that . . .though my 20+ year self would probably die with my then lifestyle
 
Botchie said:
The OP is at the straw clutching stage now. It's difficult to watch but, I'm sure he'll join society again one day (that's after he's run out of things to blame on PEOPLE)
Click to expand...
Have I been “cOwErInG aWay”? :lol:

I’m asking you to name whats missing from your life that you need to craic on with?

I’m getting very little if anything back. It’s almost as if this is some kind of clichéd bullshit but i’m happy to be told otherwise.
 
parm said:
for me its going back to life in January 2000 - you cant defeat viruses

we should have put money into protecting vunerable and financing nhs and just got on with it , life as normal
Click to expand...

This has been raised time and time again but it simply wasn't possible. The scale of "protecting vulnerable people" so that we could have just "got on with it" is absolutely phenomenal and completely unworkable.

There were arguments for population-level herd immunity, that were plausible and justifiable to begin with, until we'd seen the true scale of what that would look like.

If we lock away everyone over 70 and let everyone else "just get on", that means no in-person social contact, for elderly people, for an indeterminate length of time. We didn't know in March 2020 when we'd get a vaccine. We didn't know if we could have a vaccine.

It's very easy in hindsight to say we should have locked away the elderly, but it's a staggeringly naive proposition to put forward if you even think about it for just a few seconds. If COVID is freely circulating, it wouldn't go away. It would mutate and we'd have new variants over and over, it would be endemic in society. You also can't successfully lock away something like 10 million people and expect them to never come into contact with people until they're vaccinated, whilst expecting the other 55 million people to "just get on with it" and never see their elderly relatives.
 
Frijj said:
This has been raised time and time again but it simply wasn't possible. The scale of "protecting vulnerable people" so that we could have just "got on with it" is absolutely phenomenal and completely unworkable.

There were arguments for population-level herd immunity, that were plausible and justifiable to begin with, until we'd seen the true scale of what that would look like.

If we lock away everyone over 70 and let everyone else "just get on", that means no in-person social contact, for elderly people, for an indeterminate length of time. We didn't know in March 2020 when we'd get a vaccine. We didn't know if we could have a vaccine.

It's very easy in hindsight to say we should have locked away the elderly, but it's a staggeringly naive proposition to put forward if you even think about it for just a few seconds. If COVID is freely circulating, it wouldn't go away. It would mutate and we'd have new variants over and over, it would be endemic in society. You also can't successfully lock away something like 10 million people and expect them to never come into contact with people until they're vaccinated, whilst expecting the other 55 million people to "just get on with it" and never see their elderly relatives.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you haven't lost your enthusiasm!

Baffles me how after two years people still come out with simplistic statements and can't see how complex this all is.
 
Frijj said:
This has been raised time and time again but it simply wasn't possible. The scale of "protecting vulnerable people" so that we could have just "got on with it" is absolutely phenomenal and completely unworkable.

There were arguments for population-level herd immunity, that were plausible and justifiable to begin with, until we'd seen the true scale of what that would look like.

If we lock away everyone over 70 and let everyone else "just get on", that means no in-person social contact, for elderly people, for an indeterminate length of time. We didn't know in March 2020 when we'd get a vaccine. We didn't know if we could have a vaccine.

It's very easy in hindsight to say we should have locked away the elderly, but it's a staggeringly naive proposition to put forward if you even think about it for just a few seconds. If COVID is freely circulating, it wouldn't go away. It would mutate and we'd have new variants over and over, it would be endemic in society. You also can't successfully lock away something like 10 million people and expect them to never come into contact with people until they're vaccinated, whilst expecting the other 55 million people to "just get on with it" and never see their elderly relatives.
Click to expand...
It's not just the elderly that are vulnerable though.
There are plenty of younger people that are vulnerable and also work.
 
Mackem DJ said:
So what do we need to “just craic on” with exactly?

Or what havent we been craicing on with that grinds everyones gears it seems?
Click to expand...
No idea. I’ve enjoyed life to the full since July. Swerved a couple of parties before Christmas because my mother in law is old and didn’t want to be responsible for her getting it.
Happy when I don’t have to wear a mask in a shop next week but it is hardly an issue for me either way.
Not sure what you are bothered about.
 
Frijj said:
This has been raised time and time again but it simply wasn't possible. The scale of "protecting vulnerable people" so that we could have just "got on with it" is absolutely phenomenal and completely unworkable.

There were arguments for population-level herd immunity, that were plausible and justifiable to begin with, until we'd seen the true scale of what that would look like.

If we lock away everyone over 70 and let everyone else "just get on", that means no in-person social contact, for elderly people, for an indeterminate length of time. We didn't know in March 2020 when we'd get a vaccine. We didn't know if we could have a vaccine.

It's very easy in hindsight to say we should have locked away the elderly, but it's a staggeringly naive proposition to put forward if you even think about it for just a few seconds. If COVID is freely circulating, it wouldn't go away. It would mutate and we'd have new variants over and over, it would be endemic in society. You also can't successfully lock away something like 10 million people and expect them to never come into contact with people until they're vaccinated, whilst expecting the other 55 million people to "just get on with it" and never see their elderly relatives.
Click to expand...
The only way to protect the vunerable would be to have robots taking care of them.
 

Back
Top