How will schools be able to go back in September?

trapp

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Yes they are. Many many people have died of all ages, under 20s being the least common. Look up some statistics. Even when it's small percentages of numbers it's of huge numbers, its lots of people. And it's also not the point because people of any age of any underlying health condition should all be protected.

It is mostly older people.

Fact.

Others do die but mostly older people.

Dublingirl80

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. So are we just waiting for a vaccine that might take a year IF everything goes to plan? Then mass produce the vaccine and roll out and administer it to everyone. So stay in lockdown to minimise the virus transmission until about this time next year. Is that what you think the plan probably is?

I'll put it this way, If that saves lives then that's better than people contracting this virus that could otherwise have avoided it.

Dublingirl80

trapp wrote: »

It is mostly older people.

Fact.

Others do die but mostly older people.

I

Its majority in the older age category. And yet this virus does not discriminate. People of all ages have died from this unfortunately. It's horrific and in countries with numbers like 15000 deaths it is still a huge number.

There are lots and lots of reasons why we aren’t going to stay in lockdown for a year or more like some of you want.

We’d be economically depressed for one. Which would kill way more than Covid 19 will.

I’m not talking about 2008 type recession. Back to the dark ages.

El_Duderino 09

trapp wrote: »

I think we have to get back to some sort of normal soon as waiting for a safe vaccine could be years away and the human impact of the lockdown could be grave.

However, as I've said, presuming the virus remains, it will take schools until January at the very earliest to be ready to reopen.

At that stage hospitals should be more prepared in terms of capacity too.

I think the herd immunity is the obvious way to go. Keep transmissions as high as the health service can possibly deal with and get through it as quickly as possible.

I’d agree hat waiting for a vaccine is too risky. Might not be ready for years. So I’d agree, manage the rate at which we all get it and we can all use the health service if we need it.

People are burying their hear in the sand if they think we can eliminate the virus by simply stopping it spreading so it dies out. No government is even pretending to be aiming for that. So what are they aiming for? Managed herd immunity and hope a vaccine is developed in the next couple of years.

khalessi

trapp wrote: »

It is mostly older people.

Fact.

Others do die but mostly older people.

I wouldnt use that as a reason. WOuld you pick your parents or grandparents to die. SImon Harris has said the ages are between 32 and 103, there are 16 new born babies with it and a number of children, opening the schools will be a delicate balance in managing the reproduction rate of the virus and maintaining it below 1%

Dublingirl80

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the herd immunity is the obvious way to go. Keep transmissions as high as the health service can possibly deal with and get through it as quickly as possible.

I’d agree hat waiting for a vaccine is too risky. Might not be ready for years. So I’d agree, manage the rate at which we all get it and we can all use the health service if we need it.

People are burying their hear in the sand if they think we can eliminate the virus by simply stopping it spreading so it dies out. No government is even pretending to be aiming for that. So what are they aiming for? Managed herd immunity and hope a vaccine is developed in the next couple of years.

Boris Johnson thought herd immunity was a great idea also and then he changed his mind and eventually ended up in icu himself. Nobody knows what will happen and there is no point in bickering. Maybe those who wish like yourself could volunteer to be the ones to take the risk first if it's such a great theory. Gamble with your own lives instead of others.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are lots and lots of reasons why we aren’t going to stay in lockdown for a year or more like some of you want.

We’d be economically depressed for one. Which would kill way more than Covid 19 will.

I’m not talking about 2008 type recession. Back to the dark ages.

So opening things up will speed up transmission. Schools might be used as one way to speed up transmission and then they’d be shut down again once they’ve achieved the goal of raising transmissions to the desired rate.

If schools are reopened, I’d expect it to be to manage transmissions rather than hoping to actually stay open for the year to teach the syllabus.

Dublingirl80

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Boris Johnson thought herd immunity was a great idea also and then he changed his mind and eventually ended up in icu himself. Nobody knows what will happen and there is no point in bickering. Maybe those who wish like yourself could volunteer to be the ones to take the risk first if it's such a great theory. Gamble with your own lives instead of others.

Can I also add people with savings may just bide their time and lay low, take leave from work or leave their jobs and wait it out.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the herd immunity is the obvious way to go. Keep transmissions as high as the health service can possibly deal with and get through it as quickly as possible.

I’d agree hat waiting for a vaccine is too risky. Might not be ready for years. So I’d agree, manage the rate at which we all get it and we can all use the health service if we need it.

People are burying their hear in the sand if they think we can eliminate the virus by simply stopping it spreading so it dies out. No government is even pretending to be aiming for that. So what are they aiming for? Managed herd immunity and hope a vaccine is developed in the next couple of years.

Simon Harris even said today this virus is not going away, it will be an attempt to control it until a vaccine is found. Britain and Sweden are discovering the herd immunity approach is not the way to go. Offering up our elders is not the way either

CruelSummer

There is a balancing act to be sorted in the next few weeks if we can get the transmission rate below 1%. Personally I don’t think we needed to extend the current lockdown at this same draconian level for the next 3 weeks as I think the only way we can get out of this is for some people to contract the virus in a manageable way. Studies from Germany and Iceland of towns where mass testing has been carried out suggests at least 40% of people are asymptomatic.
Children need education and schools, yes they must be made safe. But there will come a time where a year out of education for some children may be the straw that breaks the camels back for them...even missing this term will be huge academically.

Dublingirl80

khalessi wrote: »

Simon Harris even said today this virus is not going away, it will be an attempt to control it until a vaccine is found. Britain and Sweden are discovering the herd immunity approach is not the way to go. Offering up our elders is not the way either

I agree. Everyone is hoping that science will find a solution sooner than we think. Nothing wrong with a bit of hope.

Dublingirl80

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Boris Johnson thought herd immunity was a great idea also and then he changed his mind and eventually ended up in icu himself. Nobody knows what will happen and there is no point in bickering. Maybe those who wish like yourself could volunteer to be the ones to take the risk first if it's such a great theory. Gamble with your own lives instead of others.

What’s your plan then? Stay locked down until this all blows over? What if it just comes back the minute we go back outside? What happens when we as a country start running out of money?

Beasty

trapp - do not post in this thread again

Dublingirl80

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s your plan then? Stay locked down until this all blows over? What if it just comes back the minute we go back outside? What happens when we as a country start running out of money?

I don't have a plan. All I have is hope and I personally prioritise health. It's times like this jt is a pity everyone doesn't have a form of rainy day fund taken from their salary each month only accessible in cases of emergency like this one. Then money wise people could survive for a while at least.

El_Duderino 09

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Boris Johnson thought herd immunity was a great idea also and then he changed his mind and eventually ended up in icu himself. Nobody knows what will happen and there is no point in bickering. Maybe those who wish like yourself could volunteer to be the ones to take the risk first if it's such a great theory. Gamble with your own lives instead of others.

It’s not bickering, it’s looking at what’s going on around us. We are aiming for herd immunity. The health services in Ireland and the uk aren’t over capacity yet so they’re managing it fine. This is a disease and it will kill people. That’s going to happen.

Johnson will continue with the herd immunity plan just as Leo will. Whether they use schools to help with transmissions remains to be seen. They won’t just keep us in lockdown until there’s a vaccine because the vaccine might take years or might never come.

Btw, I haven’t advocated for either approach, I’m describing what is happening right now in front of you and me.

I know you haven’t thought about what the plan is but I’d urge you to think about what’s happening in front of you. Why do you think they might consider lifting some restrictions on 5May? Do you think they could lift restrictions without transmission rates increasing?

khalessi

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s your plan then? Stay locked down until this all blows over? What if it just comes back the minute we go back outside? What happens when we as a country start running out of money?

THe plan at the minute is to wait 3 weeks and get the reproduction rate of infection below 1%. When that happens restrictions can begin to be relaxed and keep the levels maintained.

It will come back as Korea has shown they have 116 recovered people reinfected but it is to manage to keep it stable so hospitals are not overwhelmed and people can receive treatment, a fine balancing act.

ALong with this schools will probably be staggered open slowly but each school will have to do so safely according to NPHET guidance

Dublingirl80

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s not bickering, it’s looking at what’s going on around us. We are aiming for herd immunity. The health services in Ireland and the uk aren’t over capacity yet so they’re managing it fine. This isn’t a disease and it will kill people. That’s going to happen.

Johnson will continue with the herd immunity plan just as Leo will. Whether they use schools to help with transmissions remains to be seen. They won’t just keep us in lockdown until there’s a vaccine because the vaccine might take years or might never come.

Btw, I haven’t advocated for either approach, I’m describing what is happening right now in front of you and me.

I know you haven’t thought about what the plan is but I’d urge you to think about what’s happening in front of you. Why do you think they might consider lifting some restrictions on 5May? Do you think they could lift restrictions without transmission rates increasing?

I've clearly thought about it there is just no way of knowing. Too many variables. So they try to stop transmission at the moment and then speed up transmission? Why? That's rubbish, the goal will never be to speed up transmission at the risk of people's lives. That phrase is just wrong it is the opposite of what everyone is trying to do.

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

Simon Harris even said today this virus is not going away, it will be an attempt to control it until a vaccine is found. Britain and Sweden are discovering the herd immunity approach is not the way to go. Offering up our elders is not the way either

What do you think “ control it until a vaccine is found“ means? Do you think we will all stay in lockdown until a vaccine is available in a year, or 2 years or 5 years or maybe longer? Seriously, it’s important to be realistic about it.

We are aiming for herd immunity whether that’s what we call it or not. We might need to cocoon the vulnerable people for as long as it takes and if they choose to do it, but the rest of us will just have to become immune sooner or later.

Dublingirl80

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What do you think “ control it until a vaccine is found“ means? Do you think we will all stay in lockdown until a vaccine is available in a year, or 2 years or 5 years or maybe longer? Seriously, it’s important to be realistic about it.

We are aiming for herd immunity whether that’s what we call it or not. We might need to cocoon the vulnerable people for as long as it takes and if they choose to do it, but the rest of us will just have to take our chances sooner or later.

Speeding up transmission is not something we want. I think we've discussed this enough. Don't worry I'm perfectly realistic and educated and I know just as much if not more than you about all of this. I really hope treatment improves and a vaccine is found.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What do you think “ control it until a vaccine is found“ means? Do you think we will all stay in lockdown until a vaccine is available in a year, or 2 years or 5 years or maybe longer? Seriously, it’s important to be realistic about it.

We are aiming for herd immunity whether that’s what we call it or not. We might need to cocoon the vulnerable people for as long as it takes and if they choose to do it, but the rest of us will just have to take our chances sooner or later.

I do understand what he is on about as Im a nurse but no as he himself has said it is about getting reproduction rate of virus below 1% so it is managable and then relaxing restrictions/lockdown.

If he wanted herd immunity they would not have bothered with a lockdown, they could have come out with some bs reason like Britain who have quickly retreated on the herd immunity approach as have the US after 100,000 deaths in NY alone and now are promoting lockdown and masks.

It willbe a softly softly approach and schools willbe reopened slowly while maintaining social distancing.

He has also hinted that the restrcitions will be relaxed and incresed based on the numbers as he doesnt want hospitals overwhelmed like NY.

GT89

trapp wrote: »

Well if you think I'm scaremongering with September 2021 then you must believe schools will open before that?

I wish they would.

Could you explain why you think they will or eve discuss the merits of my argument?

That's optimistic I'd say more like September 2025 for the rest of the country and September 2029 for Dublin

Dublingirl80

khalessi wrote: »

I do understand what he is on about as Im a nurse but no as he himself has said it is about getting reproduction rate of virus below 1% so it is managable and then relaxing restrictions/lockdown.

If he wanted herd immunity they would not have bothered with a lockdown, they could have come out with some bs reason like Britain who have quickly retreated on the herd imunity approach as have the US after 100,000 death in NY alone and now are promoting lockdown and masks.

It willbe a softly softly approach and schools willbe reopened slowly while maintaining social distancing.

He has also hinted that the restrcitions will be relaxed and incresed based on the numbers as he doesnt want hospitals overwhelmed like NY.

Thank you for working as a nurse in the hardest time possible. And yes I agree.

khalessi

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Thank you for working as a nurse in the hardest time possible. And yes I agree.

Thank you on behalf of my nursing colleagues and friends who are still frontline, but I am now a teacher and have been lucky enough to work in both careers

El_Duderino 09

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

I've clearly thought about it there is just no way of knowing. Too many variables. So they try to stop transmission at the moment and then speed up transmission? Why? That's rubbish, the goal will never be to speed up transmission at the risk of people's lives. That phrase is just wrong it is the opposite of what everyone is trying to do.

Up to this point we’ve tried to sow it down, but if it falls too low then of course they’ll need to speed it up.

There actually aren’t that many variables. There are a few variables like how long it takes us all to become immune through herd immunity. That could happen by waiting, in lockdown, for a vaccine. Or it could happen by at least 2/3 of the population getting it and becoming immune.

It’s actually pretty simple calculation. The quickest way through it is for transmissions to be at a level where the health service is close to capacity without going beyond capacity.

If transmission rates fall too low then it could take years to achieve herd immunity.

Quick maths question for you: with a population of 5m people on the island, how long would it take for everyone to get immunity with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

How many weeks for 2/3 of the population to become immune with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

Dublingirl80

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Up to this point we’ve tried to sow it down, but if it falls too low then of course they’ll need to speed it up.

There actually aren’t that many variables. There are a few variables like how long it takes us all to become immune through herd immunity. That could happen by waiting, in lockdown, for a vaccine. Or it could happen by at least 2/3 of the population getting it and becoming immune.

It’s actually pretty simple calculation. The quickest way through it is for transmissions to be at a level where the health service is close to capacity without going beyond capacity.

If transmission rates fall too low then it could take years to achieve herd immunity.

Quick maths question for you: with a population of 5m people on the island, how long would it take for everyone to get immunity with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

How many weeks for 2/3 of the population to become immune with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

If these questions are for me then I'm done with the discussion. Each to their own.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Up to this point we’ve tried to sow it down, but if it falls too low then of course they’ll need to speed it up.

There actually aren’t that many variables. There are a few variables like how long it takes us all to become immune through herd immunity. That could happen by waiting, in lockdown, for a vaccine. Or it could happen by at least 2/3 of the population getting it and becoming immune.

It’s actually pretty simple calculation. The quickest way through it is for transmissions to be at a level where the health service is close to capacity without going beyond capacity.

If transmission rates fall too low then it could take years to achieve herd immunity.

Quick maths question for you: with a population of 5m people on the island, how long would it take for everyone to get immunity with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

How many weeks for 2/3 of the population to become immune with a transmission rate of 20,000 per week?

Well according to Simon Harris today if they had done nothing we would be looking at 120,000 cases a day. So your herd immunity theory is kinda irrelevent as they could have just done it but they chose not to

El_Duderino 09

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Speeding up transmission is not something we want. I think we've discussed this enough. Don't worry I'm perfectly realistic and educated and I know just as much if not more than you about all of this. I really hope treatment improves and a vaccine is found.

Not questioning your level of education, just your level of realism about what’s actually happening In front of us.

We are aiming for herd immunity. Whether we achieve it through a vaccine or through at least 2/3 of the population getting the disease is just a matter of how long each approach would take. If you think we’re trying to keep transmissions as close to zero as possible then you’re not being realistic about what’s happening in front of us. Lifting ANY restrictions would increase transmissions and schools would be one way to achieve that if the transmission numbers get too low.

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

Well according to Simon Harris today if they had done nothing we would be looking at 120,000 cases a day. So your herd immunity theory is kinda irrelevent as they could have just done it but they chose not to

Well, what I’ve said (quite a few times so I’m surprised you have misrepresented my position) is that they need to keep transmissions as close to health service capacity as possible without exceeding capacity. I doubt the health service could cope with the acute cases from those 120,000 daily cases so that’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

El_Duderino 09

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

If these questions are for me then I'm done with the discussion. Each to their own.

Of course. If you don’t want to think about it, you don’t have to. Each to their own, as you said.