I want a shutdown NOW!

El_Duderino 09

SuperRabbit wrote: »

China's numbers are climbing again. The next 2 years might be lockdowns on and off unless we can get better with testing and solve the shortage of ppe so that we can all be like S Korea

If it's going to go on that long then we need a test to know who has had it and is now immune. At some point we're going to need people to do things to secure the long term safety of society like harvest fruit and veg and that sort of thing.

I saw a couple of articles about farms in the UK who would normally have 80 Romanians coming at this stage to work on the farms for the summer and harvest the crops. Those Romanians aren't coming so they were saying they might not be able to harvest all the corps and significant portions would be wasted*. That's a serious concern for the medium-long term.

* it seems it didn't even occur to them to increase the pay until natives were willing to do the job. But that's a discussion for another day.

Muahahaha

Was talking to a mate in Australia about their lockdown. They've got 16 'excuses' for being out and about so its far from a full shutdown. One thing they did do was ban thousands of Chinese students flying back to Australia after Chinese New Year. They did that on February 1st, a long time before any restrictions hit Europe. Not sure if it contributed but Australia does have pretty low numbers so far for the virus given their population size.

thebaz

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If it's going to go on that long then we need a test to know who has had it and is now immune.

Anti-body testing is supposedly available very soon - and supposedly by end of April they will mass test a proportion of population to see how many had the virus unaware or with very minor symptoms - I feal this figure will be quite high - higher than expected

El_Duderino 09

thebaz wrote: »

Anti-body testing is supposedly available very soon - and supposedly by end of April they will mass test a proportion of population to see how many had the virus unaware or with very minor symptoms - I feal this figure will be quite high - higher than expected

Please god it will be higher than expected. That could mean those who are immune could go out and do the work. It might mean they will have to go where they're needed. Like the example above of needing labour to help with food production and whatever else is needed.

But I'd be reluctant to expect the numbers to be higher than the actual experts are expecting. The dream for everyone would be to have already had it and not noticed. So I think there's a lot of optimism bias at play already. But we can hope.

Scotty #

thebaz wrote: »

... to see how many had the virus unaware or with very minor symptoms - I feal this figure will be quite high - higher than expected

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Please god it will be higher than expected....

Being higher than expected would be a bad thing. You want viruses to be obvious in carriers, not silently passing through the population only taking out a select few. It's much much harder to contain and control if only a few are symptomatic.

El_Duderino 09

Scotty # wrote: »

Being higher than expected would be a bad thing. You want viruses to be obvious in carriers, not silently passing through the population only taking out a select few. It's much much harder to contain and control if only a few are symptomatic.

I though we were aiming for herd immunity, not trying to stop the virus by just preventing it from spreading. That means at least 2/3 of the population needs to get it. The more people who have had it, didn't experience acute medical issues and are now immune, the closer we are to herd immunity and the sooner this thing will be over.

But like I said, I'm always wary of believing the very thing that I would like to be true, particularly when I have naff all evidence. That's just wishful thinking

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

Being higher than expected would be a bad thing. You want viruses to be obvious in carriers, not silently passing through the population only taking out a select few. It's much much harder to contain and control if only a few are symptomatic.

But surely silently passing through the population is exactly what we are going for. We can’t, and are not trying to, stop the virus

Scotty #

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I though we were aiming for herd immunity, not trying to stop the virus by just preventing it from spreading.

We are trying to slow down the spread of the virus to the point that our healthcare system is able to cope with the numbers. We're not attempting to stop the spread altogether nor aiming for herd immunity.

Herd immunity, as you correctly point out, would require over 60% of the population contracting the virus, about 4 million people. At 3.5% mortality (WHO's estimate), that would result in 140,000* deaths on the island of Ireland.

Now if they were to test for anti-bodies and it did turn out that hundreds of thousands of us have already, unknowingly, have had the virus it would certainly change things but there's no evidence that that's happening. It's just wilful thinking. In face, there's still no evidence that people are immune after recovering but this would usually be the case with viruses.



I think the task force's estimate was up to 190,000?

El_Duderino 09

Scotty # wrote: »

We are trying to slow down the spread of the virus to the point that our healthcare system is able to cope with the numbers. We're not attempting to stop the spread altogether nor aiming for herd immunity.

Herd immunity, as you correctly point out, would require over 60% of the population contracting the virus, about 4 million people. At 3.5% mortality (WHO's estimate), that would result in 140,000* deaths on the island of Ireland.

Now if they were to test for anti-bodies and it did turn out that hundreds of thousands of us have already, unknowingly, have had the virus it would certainly change things but there's no evidence that that's happening. It's just wilful thinking. In face, there's still no evidence that people are immune after recovering but this would usually be the case with viruses.



I think the task force's estimate was up to 190,000?

If we’re not trying to stop it and are instead trying to slow it, doesn’t that suggest that we’re all going to get it eventually? They’re saying it’s going to be here annually (or all year round if it’s not affected by the warm weather) so we all need to become immune either through getting the disease or a vaccine.

tuxy

I do wonder will it take them long to research if someone is immune once they have the antibodies in their system.

tuxy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If we’re not trying to stop it and are instead trying to slow it, doesn’t that suggest that we’re all going to get it eventually? They’re saying it’s going to be here annually (or all year round if it’s not affected by the warm weather) so we all need to become immune either through getting the disease or a vaccine.

If they can slow it down enough that a vaccine is produced before it can spike again that would dramatically reduce infection and also mortality rates.
Focus will be so high on this virus that there is a good chance we completely eradicate it in the next few years once it does not mutate.

Scotty #

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If we’re not trying to stop it and are instead trying to slow it, doesn’t that suggest that we’re all going to get it eventually? They’re saying it’s going to be here annually (or all year round if it’s not affected by the warm weather) so we all need to become immune either through getting the disease or a vaccine.

Well yes, ultimately we will all get it. We'll either contract it from someone else we'll contract it through a vaccine. But we're really hoping a vaccine comes first. We're also hoping it's seasonal (like most viruses) and 'calms down' during the warmer Summer months.

In years to come I suspect we'll have highly effective treatment and a readily available vaccine and it won't be anything like the big deal it is now.

tuxy

Scotty # wrote: »

Well yes, ultimately we will all get it. We'll either contract it from someone else we'll contract it through a vaccine.

I don't think the vaccine will contain the virus only the antigen.
But it's a complex topic and I know very little.

El_Duderino 09

Scotty # wrote: »

Well yes, ultimately we will all get it. We'll either contract it from someone else we'll contract it through a vaccine. But we're really hoping a vaccine comes first. We're also hoping it's seasonal (like most viruses) and 'calms down' during the warmer Summer months.

In years to come I suspect we'll have highly effective treatment and a readily available vaccine and it won't be anything like the big deal it is now.

Fair one. We could be talking a year or even years before we have a vaccine. The idea of slowing the virus is interesting but I wonder if people have thought it through.

If Ireland could keep it down to 20,000 new cases a week, do you know how long it would take for everyone to get it?

5m/20,000 = 250 weeks or about 5 years. And for 60% of the population to get it (which is when herd Immunity begins to kick in) it would be about 3 years.

I don't know if the Irish health services could handle 20,000 cases a week, even when you consider the people who would have mild symptoms and wouldn't need medical treatment. And, obviously, I have only used the 20,000 weekly number as an example.

In any case, we're talking months or a year of slowing the virus and a vaccine isn't likely until towards the end of this year at the earliest.

Scotty #

Yep, you're right. We're wedged between a rock and a hard place. I don't know what the best solution is. I don't think anyone does. It's all a guessing game full of presumptions and hopes.

It may reach a point when the economy is so badly damaged and people become so desperate that we just have to throw our hat at it and let tens of thousands die.

hmmm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In any case, we're talking months or a year of slowing the virus and a vaccine isn't likely until towards the end of this year at the earliest.

We should hopefully have a therapuetic in the coming months e.g. blood plasma or something like Remdesivir/Hydroxychloroquine (fingers crossed).

We'll have way better testing capacity, and hopefully better surveillance (e.g. phone apps).

We're also seeing lots of science going on to try and better understand how the virus transmits. I expect some form of general social distancing to continue for quite a while, with maybe an easing after a while when we better understand how the virus spreads (e.g. everyone wearing masks).

The combination of these are our best chance of controlling the virus, at least until a vaccine emerges. Ideally we'll never have to use all those extra ICU beds and ventilators.

Icepick

hmmm wrote: »

We should hopefully have a therapuetic in the coming months e.g. blood plasma or something like Remdesivir/Hydroxychloroquine (fingers crossed).

Highly unlikely to help the wider population even if they work and that's a big if already.
These treatments are for the critical cases.
Much better to isolate people at risk. But it's a huge number since smoking, obesity and related problems (asthma, diabetes) are risk factors.

El_Duderino 09

hmmm wrote: »

We should hopefully have a therapuetic in the coming months e.g. blood plasma or something like Remdesivir/Hydroxychloroquine (fingers crossed).

We'll have way better testing capacity, and hopefully better surveillance (e.g. phone apps).

We're also seeing lots of science going on to try and better understand how the virus transmits. I expect some form of general social distancing to continue for quite a while, with maybe an easing after a while when we better understand how the virus spreads (e.g. everyone wearing masks).

The combination of these are our best chance of controlling the virus, at least until a vaccine emerges. Ideally we'll never have to use all those extra ICU beds and ventilators.

Yeah you could see an easing of social distancing in a few months IF all those things progress at ideal pace. I can't imagine things like pubs will open in this year though. It would be mental to ask people to socially distance but allow them pile into a packed pub on a weekend. Similarly, I can't imagine air travel going back to the way it was with people flitting here, there and yonder whenever the mood takes them. Regular International travel might be only for business and the wealthy.

I was due to go to Silverstone and I was chatting with a friend who was due to go to Electric Picnic. There's no way they can allow an international group of 100,000 people to fly in and mingle for a weekend and then fly back to wherever they came from. It's going to be as it is for a long while and its going to be a new world once these restrictions are phased out unless... A vaccine is found (fingers crossed)

tuxy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah you could see an easing of social distancing in a few months IF all those things progress at ideal pace. I can't imagine things like pubs will open in this year though. It would be mental to ask people to socially distance but allow them pile into a packed pub on a weekend.

Not that it's a priority but would you expect the majority of pubs to go out of business?
I don't see how they can go almost a full year without income.

El_Duderino 09

tuxy wrote: »

Not that it's a priority but would you expect the majority of pubs to go out of business?
I don't see how they can go almost a full year without income.

I don't have a clue. They could go out of business, there could be a government rescue package or any number of things could change. But can you see things like sports events being played with crowds in attendance this year? Or international travel to tourist destinations for recreation? I suppose a lot of businesses will collapse.

What do you think?

tuxy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't have a clue. They could go out of business, there could be a government rescue package or any number of things could change. But can you see things like sports events being played with crowds in attendance this year? Or international travel to tourist destinations for recreation? I suppose a lot of businesses will collapse.

What do you think?

I think shutting pubs down until the end of the year would be the end of pub culture in Ireland for a number of years.
I can see the restrictions on mass gathering lasting that long but not pubs.

El_Duderino 09

tuxy wrote: »

I think shutting pubs down until the end of the year would be the end of pub culture in Ireland for a number of years.
I can see the restrictions on mass gathering lasting that long but not pubs.

How would you have a pub culture without any mass gatherings? And could you have pubs with social distancing and everyone sitting 2m apart?

And wouldn't it be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog to allow people to go to certain venues which will obviously speed up transmission of the virus, just to keep the pub culture alive?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How would you have a pub culture without any mass gatherings? And could you have pubs with social distancing and everyone sitting 2m apart?

sitting only, and a pub by pub review by the Gardai of how many people can be allowed in

Scotty #

Pubs will be the last thing to reopen. Construction will be the first.

If we get numbers down well below manageable levels I could see the gov approving the reopening of some construction sites with very strict protocols in place.

I could easily see the pubs still being closed this time next year.

Scotty #

Deleted User wrote: »

sitting only, and a pub by pub review by the Gardai of how many people can be allowed in

To allow 2m radius around each person would require 8-16M‎² of space per person. That's 4-5 people in the avg size bar MAX! No pub will open for that.

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

To allow 2m radius around each person would require 8-16M‎² of space per person. That's 4-5 people in the avg size bar MAX! No pub will open for that.

2m radius would be relaxed. It would just be a case of limited crowding. If everyone was sitting, I think that would be okay. Likewise in restaurants....they can open subject to certain spacing between tables (which would be less than 2m). And remember that this would be subject to the data showing that cases are not threatening ICU again. If so, we go into lockdown 2.0

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

sitting only, and a pub by pub review by the Gardai of how many people can be allowed in

I think you'd only get people who need alcohol to function in those pubs - and those people's money is as good as anyone's. But I think you're describing the death of pub culture.

Pub culture doesn't have to be preserved anyway IF it is replaced by people adopting different kinds of social cultures. I see the social interaction as the only good thing about pub culture and it has plenty of obvious down sides. I'd give it up for a better alternative, wouldn't you?

Claw Hammer

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

we actually do have an army, and a huge amount of armed Gardai

Technically we do not have an army. We have about half a division.

Scotty #

Deleted User wrote: »

2m radius would be relaxed. It would just be a case of limited crowding. If everyone was sitting, I think that would be okay. Likewise in restaurants....they can open subject to certain spacing between tables (which would be less than 2m). And remember that this would be subject to the data showing that cases are not threatening ICU again. If so, we go into lockdown 2.0

I don't think you understand how this virus spreads.

IF we manage to keep the numbers manageable, it will be BECAUSE we closed the pubs, etc. To re-open them, because it worked, would be lunacy!

The pubs will be closed until this is over.

Seve OB

Deleted User wrote: »

2m radius would be relaxed. It would just be a case of limited crowding. If everyone was sitting, I think that would be okay. Likewise in restaurants....they can open subject to certain spacing between tables (which would be less than 2m). And remember that this would be subject to the data showing that cases are not threatening ICU again. If so, we go into lockdown 2.0

The problem is people. And people just don’t stick to the rules.

So for example I work in an essential services industry. I am pretty much onLy working from home but have had to go in a few times, most recently being Monday gone. So I land at my desk to find someone had been clearly been sitting there and left their personal belongings (hat and gloves) on my desk. Then someone else comes along and wants to exchange documents with me and leaves a bundle of stuff on my desk. Then someone else (actually 2 people wanted to borrow my pen so they could sign documents off as they hovered over me. Others turned a socially distant discussion into an encroachment of my space as they got closer and closer ending up placing their hands on my desk and computer screen and sat in a chair and pulled it right up beside me.

People still don’t get that they can’t touch other people’s stuff or pass stuff around. And you think that to open a restaurant would be fine because we can just space people out?