Relaxation of restrictions

Mic 1972

easypazz wrote: »

Its who you test though.

The early stages here every hypochondriac was being tested.

Now we are contact tracing, nursing home patients, healthcare staff IE getting the right people and isolating them.

Which is excellent.

Thanks for posting this, great to see.

Thank god you are not a data analyst, you have zero understanding of data

easypazz

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I posted the tests per million in another post
Ireland isn't testing as much as the countries in that list, and yet we are seeing in an increase in total cases per million


Iceland shouldn't be compared to the rest of Europe because they tested a third of the entire population

We are doing very well on ICU beds and deaths outside nursing homes though, and these are the crucial indicators.

Charles Babbage

easypazz wrote: »

She must be the 1000th "expert" to throw their tuppence worth in at this stage.

Its amazing how the media keep pulling people that nobody ever heard of into the mainstream, just to throw out more or less the same thing.

Gradual easing and possible pullback if things go tits up again.

They have to keep doing this because some people do not seem to have got the message. There are endless people coming forward saying things like open the pubs, it will be back to normal in July, etc without any clear explanation of why things would be different in July than now.

Mic1972 wrote:

I posted the tests per million in another post
Ireland isn't testing as much as the countries in that list, and yet we are seeing in an increase in total cases per million

Do you have updated data for the number of tests?

Dickie10

well Harris came out and said it thepubs are dead RIP, long live the cafe/coffee shop were all Europeans now anyway i suppose, the pub culture was our last link to Britain so thank God we wont have anymore boozed up Britain stuff in irish towns on friday/saturday nights. No pubs open til at least early 2021. lets now draw a line under this talk of pubs opening, not happening til this time next year.

iguana

easypazz wrote: »

Secondly, remove all high stools from along the bar and allow service area at the bar only.

Thirdly, instruct security to only allow in whatever number of people are permitted under whatever regulations are in place.

Finally people will start going to bars off peak, even if its just for an hour or two on a week night, hence less crowding.

Pubs, restaurants and their customers are entitled to a fair chance to if they can run responsibly.

An awful lot of pubs and restaurants won't be commercially viable in this sort of scenario. They actually rely on the really busy times to ensure their profitability. There are so many posts here detailing how restaurants can open back up if they remove half their tables and make room for social distancing. But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that? For how many publicans will it actually be worthwhile to open up if they have to keep their customers all spaced out? Many publicans and restaurateurs are probably better off at the moment than they will be if they are expected to open up at some fraction of capacity.

is_that_so

Charles Babbage wrote: »

They have to keep doing this because some people do not seem to have got the message. There are endless people coming forward saying things like open the pubs, it will be back to normal in July, etc without any clear explanation of why things would be different in July than now.





Do you have updated data for the number of tests?

It'll show up tonight if they are asked or tomorrow night via de Gascun.

Professor Moriarty

iguana wrote: »

An awful lot of pubs and restaurants won't be commercially viable in this sort of scenario. They actually rely on the really busy times to ensure their profitability. There are so many posts here detailing how restaurants can open back up if they remove half their tables and make room for social distancing. But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that? For how many publicans will it actually be worthwhile to open up if they have to keep their customers all spaced out? Many publicans and restaurateurs are probably better off at the moment than they will be if they are expected to open up at some fraction of capacity.

If capacity and numbers are down because of social distancing, then prices must go up and costs must come down. Or they close for good.

is_that_so

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Thank god you are not a data analyst, you have zero understanding of data

Your own use of data is eh flexible.

Some individuals use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts — for support rather than for illumination.

Dickie10

i suppose if its not viable for them to open they dont open , leave it up to themselves,

drunkmonkey

Augeo wrote: »

What would be different if they reopened?

We know we can't be rammed on top of each other now and as I said I'm suggesting outdoor only.

stephenjmcd

584,000 now on the govs €350 a week on top of the 212,000 that were already on the live register.
796,000 totally reliant on the state for income.

This simply put cant go on much longer, theres not a chance the state can afford that long term

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

584,000 now on the govs €350 a week on top of the 212,000 that were already on the live register.
796,000 totally reliant on the state for income.

This simply put cant go on much longer, theres not a chance the state can afford that long term

It’s not long term. The €350 is an emergency payment for up to 12 weeks.

Nermal

iguana wrote: »

But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that?

None, really. Cutting tables in half doesn't cut the rent in half.

Prices will go up, incomes will go down.

That's what the lockdown/suppression strategy is, a slide straight into poverty.

Cork Boy 53

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We know we can't be rammed on top of each other now and as I said I'm suggesting outdoor only.

And what happens when we get typically Irish ****e rainy windy weather? Where do these outdoor drinkers go then? Indoors? That would defeat the whole point of the exercise.

Gael23

My office are talking about reopening on a shift basis from mid May. By that I mean Alf would work from home week to facilitate social distancing

JRant

seamus wrote: »

The kind of person who thinks, "I should be allowed take the risk to get infected if I choose to", is the same person who will refuse to self-isolate if they do get sick.

The legal lockdown exists precisely because of the "it should be my choice" gombeens.

I disagree Seamus. I'm more on the side of easing restrictions, in a controlled manner, while at the same time will be doing everything possible to limit exposure because I have very vulnerable people to look after also. It's entirely reasonable to hold both ideas at the same time and I believe the majority of people are in the same boat. Nearly everyone I know has elderly parents or knows someone with an underlying condition. We want to make sure they are kept safe.

I also understand that I'm lucky enough to have kept my job during this and have the luxury of WFH permanently if required. An awful lot of people don't have this and need to get back out working to support their families.

Thee will be an increase in cases once these restrictions start to be rolled back but they were never about stopping this virus, more to allow the HSE ramp up capacity. It seems we have the capacity element covered for now so we need to move on to the next phase and begin getting back to some sort of normality.

I'd rather we had to roll back at some stage in the future based on actual data then have a permanent lockdown implemented on the basis of 'what ifs'

johncarner

There is nothing other than half decent compromise solutions until a couple of years after a vaccine is available and been administered to enough people world wide. Until then we just have to figure out what can be done, rather than what can't.

Murple

Akabusi wrote: »

What harm would opening the schools do? The kids would just be going home after school, if they catch it they will only spread it in the household. There would need to be exceptions of course for any kids with a underlying condition, households with vulnerable people, healthcare workers and retirement home staff.
I'm now off the opinion that we have to learn to live with this thing, as we don't know when or if we'll have a vaccine. This virus is here to stay so we have to let it spread at some point in a controlled as possible manner. Healthy kids and their healthy parents are not going to topple the healthcare system.

Kids with an underlying condition? That would include all children with asthma, roughly 1 in 10 children.
Consider a girl's primary school with children from 150 households. That wouldn't be a huge school by any means. Let's say each household is on average 4 people. That's 600 people. And let's imagine there's 50 of those 600 are secondary pupils in other schools and mixing with people from another 250 households. And 100 are boys going to a boys primary school and mixing with boys from an additional 150 households. And we better add in the school staff from each of these schools now connected to the original single school- principals, class teachers, LS teachers, SNA, secretary, caretaker etc. and their households. That's an awful lot of people who could be exposed and that's with the presumption that every household is keeping to itself. Add in those where people are mixing with others through work or shopping. A percentage of even healthy people have been badly affected and have required hospitalisation.
But sure what harm would opening schools do?!

Breezin

JRant wrote: »

I disagree Seamus. I'm more on the side of easing restrictions, in a controlled manner, while at the same time will be doing everything possible to limit exposure because I have very vulnerable people to look after also. It's entirely reasonable to hold both ideas at the same time and I believe the majority of people are in the same boat. Nearly everyone I know has elderly parents or knows someone with an underlying condition. We want to make sure they are kept safe.

I also understand that I'm lucky enough to have kept my job during this and have the luxury of WFH permanently if required. An awful lot of people don't have this and need to get back out working to support their families.

Thee will be an increase in cases once these restrictions start to be rolled back but they were never about stopping this virus, more to allow the HSE ramp up capacity. It seems we have the capacity element covered for now so we need to move on to the next phase and begin getting back to some sort of normality.

I'd rather we had to roll back at some stage in the future based on actual data then have a permanent lockdown implemented on the basis of 'what ifs'

Unless we want a lockdown until the arrival of a vaccine, this is the only sensible position.

Mic 1972

is_that_so wrote: »

Your own use of data is eh flexible.

Some individuals use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts — for support rather than for illumination.

I have a fair understanding of data as it's my daily job :-) thanks

JRant

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We know we can't be rammed on top of each other now and as I said I'm suggesting outdoor only.

I've a lovely beer garden, out the back of the house and have no intentions of going to a pub anytime soon regardless of whether they opened tomorrow or not. However it's good to see some suggestions that may be workable rather than the "keep everything shut" mentality that has crept in.

Nermal

Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1250333876716597251

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

...
That's what the lockdown/suppression strategy is, a slide straight into poverty.

Whilst saving lives.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates..........

Global oil demand will plunge a record 9.3 million barrels a day in 2020, wiping out a decade of consumption growth .......... that's not such a bad thing.

scamalert

iguana wrote: »

An awful lot of pubs and restaurants won't be commercially viable in this sort of scenario. They actually rely on the really busy times to ensure their profitability. There are so many posts here detailing how restaurants can open back up if they remove half their tables and make room for social distancing. But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that? For how many publicans will it actually be worthwhile to open up if they have to keep their customers all spaced out? Many publicans and restaurateurs are probably better off at the moment than they will be if they are expected to open up at some fraction of capacity.

well some are keen on bashing hospitality services but truth is caffes, restaurtants and pubs employ a lot of people that now basically lost their jobs for prob long time, as average place would employ 5-10 people like caffee's etc and this will affect people, sure having less drunks out on streets is great, but the cost of people's livelihood also depend a lot on this.


as been said its hard to speculate or say some will open at x date, as most likely if few do, it wont be massive, since many would of lost tons of cash- rents wages, investments, insurance etc to stay afloat so without government giving some sort of debt write off many wont return to work at half capacity as its simply not viable, since these industries in general operate at split even at best during rush hour times. cant imagine people flocking any such places to sit behind plastic glass windows either, as for many it will be uncertain times and spending will be at all time low going forward, with so many uncertainties.

JRant

Murple wrote: »

Kids with an underlying condition? That would include all children with asthma, roughly 1 in 10 children.
Consider a girl's primary school with children from 150 households. That wouldn't be a huge school by any means. Let's say each household is on average 4 people. That's 600 people. And let's imagine there's 50 of those 600 are secondary pupils in other schools and mixing with people from another 250 households. And 100 are boys going to a boys primary school and mixing with boys from an additional 150 households. And we better add in the school staff from each of these schools now connected to the original single school- principals, class teachers, LS teachers, SNA, secretary, caretaker etc. and their households. That's an awful lot of people who could be exposed and that's with the presumption that every household is keeping to itself. Add in those where people are mixing with others through work or shopping. A percentage of even healthy people have been badly affected and have required hospitalisation.
But sure what harm would opening schools do?!

Well, the next logical step is to look at the many 100s of thousands already going about their daily life working in "essential" services. Are we seeing a huge increase in clusters based on this? If we are then maybe there's a reason to keep the schools closed longer.
If not, and the information being given to us suggests that community transmission is almost zero, then maybe it's time to start slowly bringing them back to school on a phased basis.

Cork Boy 53

Nermal wrote: »

Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1250333876716597251

This is actually very good news for climate change activists.

easypazz

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I have a fair understanding of data as it's my daily job :-) thanks

Why are you calling historical data "not good news" then?

A lot of these tests are weeks old and most people have either recovered or passed away, so not really relevant to today and tomorrow.

What matters is the ICU situation, and the number of new confirmed cases each day in the last few days, and how many we get in the next 7 days etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

easypazz wrote: »

She must be the 1000th "expert" to throw their tuppence worth in at this stage.

Its amazing how the media keep pulling people that nobody ever heard of into the mainstream, just to throw out more or less the same thing.

But, sure, most scientists aren’t going to be known by the general public. Do you expect name recognition for experts on any given topic?

Irish Aris

I think the whole pub situation will need a different approach, similar to what we do in the continent, as many other posters have said.

I'll give an example from my home country, Greece. When you go out in a pub (and in some-not many bars as well), the norm would be that you sit down on a table. The tables wouldn't always be 2 meters apart from each other but I guess this can be managed. In Greece, the concept of a pub would normally involve food. If you want to go out just drinking, you go to a bar. So I reckon there is some room to reconsider things here in Ireland. I would agree that profits wouldn't be guaranteed, so pub owners would have to consider it on a case by case basis.

The ones I consider even worse are nightclubs (like the ones in Dublin Harcourt street with the long queues). I'd say they are even lower than pubs in the reopening list. In general the whole clubbing scene could suffer a lot.

Anyway, not that it matters to me personally. Even if the pubs were to re-open anytime soon, it is the least of my priorities. There are things that I miss more than going for a drink.