Relaxation of restrictions Part II

Cantona's Collars

Hooked wrote: »

Both in their 50s.... BUT what else??? Heart issues? Asthma? Smokers?

Just because they were "young-ish" doesn't mean the Covid-19 wasn't fückîng with 2 lads with the lungs of 80 year olds...

The median age of lab reported deaths is 83!!!
And nearly half of them are from bloody care homes!
https://www.gov.ie/en/news/7e0924-latest-updates-on-covid-19-coronavirus/#latest-charts-and-maps

It was unusual to have 2 brothers die at the same time.
My problem is people taking the piss,my local town was strewn with bags of empty beer cans and bottles along with the leftovers of takeaways the other morning.
While so many are trying to do the right thing in the hope of getting back to normal there's many who are now saying feck it let's have a session now we don't have to get up for work.

Another problem is childcare for couples who are going back to work. What do they do with the kids if working from home or flexitime isn't an option?

thegetawaycar

boring accountant wrote: »

I wish people would stop downplaying the severity of putting innocent, law abiding citizens under arbitrary house arrest for 6 weeks, making them queue up for food and generally treating all citizens the same as convicted criminals with NO evidence to support to effectiveness of such policies only mathematical models based on flawed assumptions.

- The Government aren't making you queue for food, or anyone else.
- You can leave your house
I've not seen anyone "treated like criminals"

Cantona's Collars

thegetawaycar wrote: »

- The Government aren't making you queue for food, or anyone else.
- You can leave your house
I've not seen anyone "treated like criminals"

I think the longest I waited outside my local supermarket is about 5 minutes. It's no inconvenience at all.
The only ones treated like criminals are those breaking the law. It's good to see the checkpoints catching so many numpties driving either under the influence,drug dealing or having no insurance etc.
Yes I've been inconvenienced by the restrictions but the sky hasn't fallen down.

thegetawaycar

Deleted User wrote: »

Its really naive to think that we don't let people die/suffer every day to protect the economy. Of course we do. There's many illnesses that don't get the funding they realistically need. Its not that we're cold heartless people. We just can't always afford for 100 people to suffer to help 1.
I can think of many examples but I won't get bogged down in the details.

The same is going to apply to Covid 19. We can't lockdown for long periods of time just to try keep a few more people alive. We've worked hard for decades to have the kind of quality of life we enjoy in 2020. We can't throw that all away.

And if the economy fails, we've no money to help anybody anyways.

Keep that in mind next time you feel tempted to post something like "Even 1 life is more important than the economy"

I'd disagree, we CAN lockdown for long periods, things that are completely and utterly frivolous eg. cinema and concerts should be cancelled if it saves peoples lives.

The people who "worked hard for decades" are the older people that are taking the worst of this and they should be treated with the respect they deserve instead of people valuing unnecessary things over their lives.

If the whole world economy fails, then the whole world prints more money, all currencies become worth less but stay relatively aligned to their competitors as they all do the same process.

Just to add, how people live has changed numerous times over the years, new ways of interacting with social distancing will become the norm and life will move on after a bit of time. Just because things aren't the same as before does not make the worse or wrong.

boring accountant

boring accountant wrote: »

I wish people would stop downplaying the severity of putting innocent, law abiding citizens under arbitrary house arrest for 6 weeks, making them queue up for food and generally treating all citizens the same as convicted criminals with NO evidence to support to effectiveness of such policies only mathematical models based on flawed assumptions.

No evidence? Seriously?

Goose76

Goose76 wrote: »

From Irish Times today:

''Cocooning is also expected to last for the foreseeable future, until vaccines or treatments for Covid-19 are found.''

so the over 70s are expected to live the rest of their lives indoors, with just a bit of exercise each day? Am I reading this correctly? Thoughts?

I don’t think old people’s mental health will last longer than 6 months.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

There was never an official retraction, just a drastic revision downward of numbers.

I linked a post in a reply to you above that gives a summary.

Surely you agree with me that the assumptions and efficacy of these lockdowns should be investigated by scientists either way? In fact they definitely will be so the only choice will be whether or not people pay attention to that or choose to say they've 'moved on' either to some new crisis or something else.

We should always review models. However we cannot argue that what we have done has achieved nothing.

And the revision was after a change in the measures

growleaves

I'd disagree, we CAN lockdown for long periods, things that are completely and utterly frivolous eg. cinema and concerts should be cancelled if it saves peoples lives.

Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended and those aren't frivolous.

Lockdown is an evil and destructive policy. The best thing you can say about it is that it is a "necessary evil" and even then you should be demanding extraordinary proof. I say this to defenders of the lockdown as much as anyone.

Simply flinging the dichotomy of cancelling ordinary human life vs. sacrificing old peoples lives isn't going to cut it. It isn't clear if this is a true dichotomy, if things are this simple.

Also:

Stop lying about the lockdown being trivial, or trivially easy to endure. It isn't.

easypazz

Deleted User wrote: »

Its really naive to think that we don't let people die/suffer every day to protect the economy. Of course we do. There's many illnesses that don't get the funding they realistically need. Its not that we're cold heartless people. We just can't always afford for 100 people to suffer to help 1.
I can think of many examples but I won't get bogged down in the details.

The same is going to apply to Covid 19. We can't lockdown for long periods of time just to try keep a few more people alive. We've worked hard for decades to have the kind of quality of life we enjoy in 2020. We can't throw that all away.

And if the economy fails, we've no money to help anybody anyways.

Keep that in mind next time you feel tempted to post something like "Even 1 life is more important than the economy"

The life expectancy of traveller men is 15 years less than settled men.

We don't really care about the homeless either, or the drug addicts, or rough sleepers or a host of other unfortunates.

After a while a level of deaths / hospitalisations / new cases each day / week / month will become an acceptable norm that we largely hope passes our own families by.

easypazz

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'd disagree, we CAN lockdown for long periods, things that are completely and utterly frivolous eg. cinema and concerts should be cancelled if it saves peoples lives.

Lockdown forever won't save lives. It will fall apart.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

No evidence? Seriously?

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'd disagree, we CAN lockdown for long periods, things that are completely and utterly frivolous eg. cinema and concerts

Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think old people’s mental health will last longer than 6 months.

I don't disagree with you, but I have to wonder what we expect the government/health service to do in this situation.

This is a virus that is circulating - a hundred years ago it would have ripped through the population, and 10 to 20% of our 70 and 80 year olds would already be dead, many of them at home in terrible circumstances. That would have led to a lot worse mental health for everyone.

We have the ability to track and partially control it, but there is no solution short of herd immunity - ideally using a vaccine.

There can be some tinkering around the edges in terms of rules, and there will always be people who don't care about the risk - but we do have to think about the risk to our medical staff also, who won't hesitate to treat someone even if that person themselves isn't too bothered.

thegetawaycar

growleaves wrote: »

Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended and those aren't frivolous.

Lockdown is an evil and destructive policy. The best thing you say about it is that it is a "necessary evil" and even then you should be demanding extraordinary proof. I say this to defenders of the lockdown as much as anyone.

Simply flinging the dichotomy of cancelling ordinary human life vs. sacrificing old peoples lives isn't going to cut it. It isn't clear if this is a true dichotomy, if things are this simple.

Also:

Stop lying about the lockdown being trivial, or trivially easy to endure. It isn't.

So I can empathise better, what parts of the lockdown are causing you severe issues?

"Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended" - While there may be few cases where this is true and I'd agree with removing some restrictions over time, why would those 4 things be suspended?
Families and marriages for the most part live in the same dwelling so shouldn't really be "suspended".

Relationships and friendships where not living in the same house shouldn't be suspended, there are numerous methods of communication that can be used, we live in an age of technology so nearly all obstacles to friendships can be overcome quite easily.

I'm not saying it's not difficult for some but it really isn't as bad as some make it out.

thegetawaycar

easypazz wrote: »

Lockdown forever won't save lives. It will fall apart.

Agreed, forever it isn't possible and shouldn't be used. New norms will need to be adhered to such as social distancing, for a long time peoples lives won't be the same as before. Time for people to get their head around it.

GazzaL

growleaves wrote: »

Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended and those aren't frivolous.

Lockdown is an evil and destructive policy. The best thing you can say about it is that it is a "necessary evil" and even then you should be demanding extraordinary proof. I say this to defenders of the lockdown as much as anyone.

Simply flinging the dichotomy of cancelling ordinary human life vs. sacrificing old peoples lives isn't going to cut it. It isn't clear if this is a true dichotomy, if things are this simple.

Also:

Stop lying about the lockdown being trivial, or trivially easy to endure. It isn't.

Partners that live apart can't see each other, parents can't see their children and vice versa, people are losing jobs that gave them self esteem, people are losing businesses that they spent their lives building. People are losing the good things in their lives, which in some cases will lead to further destruction of relationships and mental health. We will unfortunately see more suicides as a result of this.

gozunda

Speakerboxx wrote: »

People are not adhering to restrictions anyway. Time to open the floodgates.

I see a lot of posters using the phrase 'people' when the evidently mean themselves on this thread

But yeah not particularly helpful that attitude tbh.

Just because some may have decided to go against the current advise of helping to reduce the rate of infection and preventing our health services from being overrun - doesn't mean we are all eejits and going to do the same.

thegetawaycar

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?



Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

Only commenting on the last part, because something is "worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year" does not mean it's not frivolous.
They aren't a necessity and shouldn't be valued over 1 persons life.

If they can't allow for social distancing safely they should remain closed fore the foreseeable.

growleaves

thegetawaycar wrote: »

So I can empathise better, what parts of the lockdown are causing you severe issues?

"Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended" - While there may be few cases where this is true and I'd agree with removing some restrictions over time, why would those 4 things be suspended?
Families and marriages for the most part live in the same dwelling so shouldn't really be "suspended".

Relationships and friendships where not living in the same house shouldn't be suspended, there are numerous methods of communication that can be used, we live in an age of technology so nearly all obstacles to friendships can be overcome quite easily.

I'm not saying it's not difficult for some but it really isn't as bad as some make it out.

Isolation is a known cause of depression and early onset of dementia.

Virtuality is not comparable to real life.

If we were to entertain 'rolling lockdowns' for 'extended periods' then we will have essentially agreed to give up living. It would be akin to mass suicide.

Even if they lift this thing in early June they'll have turned another generation of Irish into paupers. With no emigration safety valve, expect lots of strange and frightening political changes in the years ahead.

PmMeUrDogs

The flippancy of those advocating for longer amounts of lockdown is annoying me.

I agreed with the lockdown, and I have abided by it 100%, and think it was absolutely necessary.

But the flippancy, Jesus. It is NOT easy on people. I'm lucky in that it hasn't impacted my mental health, but I'm aware I'm lucky. My friends and family aren't so lucky. Every single one of my friends are texting me daily, experiencing massive anxiety, depressive episodes, crying regularly, etc.


We're not used to it. We are sociable by nature, we're used to being around each other constantly. Being sat at home, with far too much time on our hands, is incredibly difficult and gives us way too much time to overthink and become anxious.


I haven't seen my friends for around 7 weeks and was sent home for that long because I'm high risk. I haven't seen my family except for the person I live with in that time. I have zoom calls daily but those zoom calls are currently filled with my friends being upset because they can't cope.


People who I know were sticking to restrictions are starting to become complacent because they are struggling mentally and want some form of release. Some have been prescribed meds over the phone, but that's not much help until they kick in, which can take weeks.



I've stuck to restrictions and will continue to do so. I've already had family die from the virus and I don't want to risk anyone's health around me. But it's not easy, not in the slightest. Anyone who finds it easy, congratulations, I'm happy for you. I'm finding it fairly okay too. But to insist it's easy for everyone is utter bollocks.

GazzaL

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Only commenting on the last part, because something is "worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year" does not mean it's not frivolous.
They aren't a necessity and shouldn't be valued over 1 persons life.

If they can't allow for social distancing safely they should remain closed fore the foreseeable.

Most businesses have plans to implement social distancing, would you let them open?

Why don't you care about the lives being destroyed because of the lockdown?

gozunda

easypazz wrote: »

Did you read the article?

It undermines your argument.

You said:

Will there be an economic downturn globally next year? Yes there will.The IMF said:She warned that "global growth will turn sharply negative in 2020," Even in the best case the IMF expects only a "partial recovery" next year, The downturn will happen this year, and output will reach a very low point, but once things reopen, there will be a modest upturn.

Lol. You would argue with a signpost

I suppose anyone can chose to read that and claim whatever they like then add boldy bits for good measure

But yes It says exactly what I referred to that there will be a global downturn/ recession. And btw I did not mention anything about a recovery. But yes that will follow as well.
Do try and keep up.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?



Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

At least 13,000 deaths in Lombardy who were slow to lockdown in a population of 10 million. Compared to where we will probably top out at 1,500 to 2,000 in this cycle, if we were like Lombardy it would have been 6,000+. And even then we were a bit late. It works.

By the way I would advocate loosening

appledrop

KrustyUCC wrote: »

These two bonus weeks are a result of the mess in nursing homes etc and HSE not having sufficient testing capacity

Nothing to do with the public at large

The virus is very well suppressed in the community

The vast vast majority have done all that could be asked of them

Be very interesting how the government will try to spin this one

Yep nearly 50% of all deaths from Covid are in Nursing Homes. Its a disgrace. Continuing lockdown for another 2 weeks will do nothing to solve this at all. They need personnel in Nursing home now + move residents to isolation units elsewhere if necessary. What about all the private hospitial beds lying empty? They could be used for over crowded nursing homes.

tobefrank321

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?



Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

If we lockdown for most of the year the cost will be somewhere between 30-50 billion.

If we could isolate the truly vulnerable and isolate nursing homes and as importantly nursing home staff and their families the cost might be 10 billion.

The government have been useless at isolating nursing homes and shutting down everything is the lazymans approach to protrecting groups like nursing home residents.

SusieBlue

thegetawaycar wrote: »

So I can empathise better, what parts of the lockdown are causing you severe issues?

"Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended" - While there may be few cases where this is true and I'd agree with removing some restrictions over time, why would those 4 things be suspended?
Families and marriages for the most part live in the same dwelling so shouldn't really be "suspended".

Relationships and friendships where not living in the same house shouldn't be suspended, there are numerous methods of communication that can be used, we live in an age of technology so nearly all obstacles to friendships can be overcome quite easily.

I'm not saying it's not difficult for some but it really isn't as bad as some make it out.

Maybe for you it isn’t as bad, but you don’t speak for everyone.
It’s all relative to ones personal experience. I am finding current conditions pretty much unbearable and I don’t know how much longer I can take it.
I wake up every day with a weight on my chest at the prospect of trying to fill another day, missing my friends and family, no job to go to, no purpose and very little to distract myself from my anxiety.
I think I have cried at least once a day since the isolation started. I’m finding it hard to cope.
Netflix and chill just isn’t cutting it anymore, I’m not sure it ever was but it was tolerated because we were promised it was only a temporary measure.

One life isn’t more important than the other. We all matter in this and there has to be a balance.

thegetawaycar

GazzaL wrote: »

Partners that live apart can't see each other, parents can't see their children and vice versa, people are losing jobs that gave them self esteem, people are losing businesses that they spent their lives building. People are losing the good things in their lives, which in some cases will lead to further destruction of relationships and mental health. We will unfortunately see more suicides as a result of this.

Partners that live apart can't see each other - They can
parents can't see their children and vice versa - They can

Again, I'm not saying it's easy or ideal but it's been about 5 weeks not 5 years.
It is difficult if you can't see family members face to face, although if you are going to see them while keeping to social distancing I'd personally consider it essential travel.

Losing businesses is going to happen, that's an unfortunate case here, social distancing is the new norm going forward, if you can't adhere to it, it will be very difficult to re-open or make a living from the business at all.

Not to down play that, new businesses will open that can and more new norms will be created.

is_that_so

Suggestion that the plan may not have dates but will have a map of how each of the phases will work.

thegetawaycar

GazzaL wrote: »

Most businesses have plans to implement social distancing, would you let them open?

Why don't you care about the lives being destroyed because of the lockdown?

If a business can safely adhere to social distancing, I'd let them open (I'm not the decision maker). If that happens next week or in 3 weeks I'd feel the same.

Who has had their life destroyed by the lockdown?

hmmm

Interesting idea being proposed in New York - close off streets, and allow restaurants to serve guests in the open air.

It's ideas like this that we need here too, and businesses should be pushing for.

growleaves

Deleted User wrote: »

At least 13,000 deaths in Lombardy who were slow to lockdown in a population of 10 million. Compared to where we will probably top out at 1,500 to 2,000 in this cycle, if we were like Lombardy it would have been 6,000+. And even then we were a bit late. It works.

What you have is a cause-and-effect assumption - then you've jumped to a conclusion.

This cause-and-effect assumption has to be tested by an inquiry, i.e. Were other aggravated factors in place in Lombardy which caused it be particularly bad? To what extent were these factors operative compared to other regions? To what extent had Ireland increased its ICU capacity? etc.