Relaxation of restrictions Part II

Stark

Beasty wrote: »

So you are happy for this to blow up again, and get us back to where we were a month ago when we were getting up to a thousand new cases a day? And if we get back to that level, perhaps 2,000, 5,000 a day? What level of infection would you be "happy" with?

I think most people agree an R0 of just under 1 is a sensible target. 0.5 is nice but you have to ask are the trade-offs required to get to that worth it. I've no doubt that the loss of life due to economic destruction, lack of non-covid related medical services, mental health, physical health issues will exceed the meager number of lives saved by getting R0 closer to 0 than 1.

The reason why we treated Covid differently to other things that cause significant loss of life every year is because at R0 > 1, the problem compounds in a way that it doesn't for heart disease, cancer, road fatalties etc. But when it's at a point where it's holding steady, then why treat it any differently to other illnesses/risks. Keep the disease at < 1 but don't go moving goalposts and saying "new goal is as low as possible" as you create more problems than you solve.

niallo27

fatalll wrote: »

I dont think the problem is the actual exams but the travelling to/from and people going into and out of room etc.


Its not as simple as you are trying to make out


again, they wanted to try run it, they were damned either way

You mean like the way people are going in and out of work every day right now.

niallo27

Beasty wrote: »

So you are happy for this to blow up again, and get us back to where we were a month ago when we were getting up to a thousand new cases a day? And if we get back to that level, perhaps 2,000, 5,000 a day? What level of infection would you be "happy" with?

How did you get that from what was said in the post.

easypazz

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1258804800789102593?s=19

This gives an indication as to how the population is affected by age group in terms of lifting restrictions and how deadly the virus could be by age group.

Let the vast majority of us get back into the workplace and go about our lives in as safe a manner as possible

Shocking that this is being dragged out.

ChelseaRentBoy

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Great quote from our friend Ivan

"People say oh we ll just borrow more money. Do you know what that means? It means USC"

A lot of people are texting newstalk, saying "I am so tired of these non elected officials damaging our country"

Seriously, what the hell. They are indeed non elected. They are not wanted and yet they make all the decisions. I like M Martin, but if he doesnt form a govt by end of this month I ll like him much less. He needs to save us, and I appreciate he is ex health minister too but surely he isnt as bad as Leo & Co?

Oh well that's that sorted then. If people are texting in Newstalk let's just go ahead and create policy based on that.

FintanMcluskey

easypazz wrote: »

Shocking that this is being dragged out.

Its disgraceful, we are rightly the laughing stock of the world.

Beasty

niallo27 wrote: »

How did you get that from what was said in the post.

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

easypazz

alwald wrote: »

These restrictions are going to be with us for the foreseable. Schools are preparing apps/websites as we speak so that kids will be split in different groups to allow social distancing...when they are not scheduled to be physically in class they will log and do their assigned work online.

There is a chance that no vaccine will be found so our new normal will be WFH, social distancing, very limited number of people in bars/restaurants and no mass gathering.

Herd immunity isn't guaranteed and even with antibodies we don't know how long the immunity lasts...let's not even talk about the long term effects of this virus on the human body as it will take us years to obtain the necessary scientific evidence.

It's time for the EU to look at things like a UBI to allow all citizens to live a decent life and avoid poverty, abuse and whatnot.

Just because you dream of long term restrictions on peoples freedom does not mean the rest of us will stand for it.

FintanMcluskey

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

Would it not suggest an increase of R number among an age group who this is in no way dangerous to?
Deaths would be irrelevant among those at work, because its not dangerous to them.

How long after Europe should we reopen?

Stark

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

0.99... (recurring).

We're between 0.3 and 0.8 at the moment. We have a buffer to play with. Of course re-opening has to be coupled with testing, contact tracing and social distancing adaptions so we're not back to exactly as we were before lockdown.

batman_oh

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

The entire lockdown plan was to flatten the curve and leave the hospitals in a position where they had capacity to deal with a predicted increase as soon as things started going back to normal.
Do you suggest staying as is until there are no cases and stop every person from leaving or entering the country until there are no cases in the world?

pjohnson

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Would it not suggest an increase of R number among an age group who this is in no way dangerous to?
Deaths would be irrelevant among those at work, because its not dangerous to them.

How long after Europe should we reopen?

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

keynes

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Great news

Leo "We would like to resume international travel by end of year, or even as early as this summer"

Tide is turning?

There is a complete disconnect between their attitude to travel and their approach to everything else. They continue to let hundreds pour in here everyday unchecked, while 5 students sitting an exam in a classroom constitutes a major public health risk.


Its almost as ludicrous as the way people now have to crowd into food stores like Lidl to buy garden chairs since they've forced vast, expansive stores like Woodies to close.

FintanMcluskey

pjohnson wrote: »

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

How you are continually allowed to post like this and not get attention is beyond me. No addition to the discussion

easypazz

Beasty wrote: »

So you are happy for this to blow up again, and get us back to where we were a month ago when we were getting up to a thousand new cases a day? And if we get back to that level, perhaps 2,000, 5,000 a day? What level of infection would you be "happy" with?

Once the elderly and vulnerable are cocooned then the death rate reduces greatly.

By continuing to engage in social distancing while returning to work the infection rate won't increase very fast.

And finally people getting infected is not a death sentence, or anything of the sort.

Its amazing people still swalliw these armageddon scenarios being touted.

pjohnson

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

How you are continually allowed to post like this and not get attention is beyond me. No addition to the discussion

And you do copy/pasting the same rhetoric for weeks?


Your questions have been repeatedly answered.

gozunda

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Italy with pubs open in less than 3 weeks. Meanwhile in Ireland a tyrant with a title of CMO who has been handed unbridled control has cancelled state exams completely unchallenged. No right to protest of course

Yesh getting pissed / going to the pub is our No. 1 priority alright. Feckers eh?

It Italy pubs etc will only open If the rates of infection are kept under control. The same criteria as here

Oh and in Italy people were restricted to their homes for 2 months. Here it's been six weeks Go figure eh.

If the UK can work that with their examinations. It shouldn't be overtly difficult here either

Pitch n Putt

easypazz wrote: »

Shocking that this is being dragged out.

It’s a ridiculous joke. We should probably cancel back to school now also. How can you have people doing unnecessary shopping for books uniforms etc

Then apply the same for Christmas and so on and so on.

Who’s going to apply some rational thinking to this thing and have a detailed look at what is actually happening in front of our eyes.

We’re not going to be Italy mk2 we’ve suppressed and surpassed all targets set regarding the virus by the CMO /NPHET/Hse etc but yet we’re going to continue with a ridiculous three month plan to reopen the country.

What are we waiting for?????

Beasty

batman_oh wrote: »

The entire lockdown plan was to flatten the curve and leave the hospitals in a position where they had capacity to deal with a predicted increase as soon as things started going back to normal.
Do you suggest staying as is until there are no cases and stop every person from leaving or entering the country until there are no cases in the world?

No - flattening the curve has worked very well in this country. Yes we are starting to see some relaxation in certain countries - some of those countries were not as badly affected, but others were affected a number of weeks before Ireland

We now have a plan. I would personally prefer the restrictions to be lifted quicker than the plan. There is scope to do that

However what we can do ahead of the next change on 18 May is observe what happens in some of those countries that were ahead of us. An R > 0 is still an issue. It can still climb back above 1. What we do not properly understand is how it will "react" to the lifting of particular restrictions

I personally, having been a little sceptical when this whole thing started off, now think I would prefer to overcook this particular egg than have a material risk of heading back to where we were a month ago. If we do end up like that we would probably then be looking at even stricter restrictions for an even longer period

Thespoofer

As the song goes ' the juice ain't worth the squeeze'.

easypazz

pjohnson wrote: »

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

Its true though.

pjohnson

easypazz wrote: »

Its true though.

Can maybe guess why the death rate is low? Any reason other than the power of work?

Beasty

Stark wrote: »

0.99... (recurring).

That actually results in this being a perpetual disease remaining at its current level

dalyboy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1258804800789102593?s=19

This gives an indication as to how the population is affected by age group in terms of lifting restrictions and how deadly the virus could be by age group.

Let the vast majority of us get back into the workplace and go about our lives in as safe a manner as possible

I wonder how these Under 80 years old numbers breakdown in comparison to an influenza season. If they are equal or under that number then this lockdown is a criminal scam.

easypazz

Beasty wrote: »

No - flattening the curve has worked very well in this country. Yes we are starting to see some relaxation in certain countries - some of those countries were not as badly affected, but others were affected a number of weeks before Ireland

We now have a plan. I would personally prefer the restrictions to be lifted quicker than the plan. There is scope to do that

However what we can do ahead of the next change on 18 May is observe what happens in some of those countries that were ahead of us. An R > 0 is still an issue. It can still climb back above 1. What we do not properly understand is how it will "react" to the lifting of particular restrictions

I personally, having been a little sceptical when this whole thing started off, now think I would prefer to overcook this particular egg than have a material risk of heading back to where we were a month ago. If we do end up like that we would probably then be looking at even stricter restrictions for an even longer period

Why are you fixated on the R number?

Cocoon the vulnerable groups and the whole thing changes.

FintanMcluskey

pjohnson wrote: »

Can maybe guess why the death rate is low? Any reason other than the power of work?

Or that the virus is most lethal to those at a much older age than anyone able to preform a days work.

Why some people think this is a death sentence to all ages is baffling when the stats are out there

kwestfan08

pjohnson wrote: »

Still peddling this again ah this thread is great.

But if you're under say 40 with no underlying conditions, not obese and not in contact with anyone that is it is relatively harmless no?

FintanMcluskey

kwestfan08 wrote: »

But if you're under say 40 with no underlying conditions, not obese and not in contact with anyone that is it is relatively harmless no?

If you are under 80 with those stats the survival odd's are greatly stacked in your favour.

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Its disgraceful, we are rightly the laughing stock of the world.

No one is laughing at us you ridiculous nutters

the kelt

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

To be fair it doesn’t really matter what’s its acceptable to any individual poster, that’s a matter of opinion for each individual.

But how can people put a number on what they would like when we don’t even know officially what the numbers are needing to be?

I would like the numbers to be whatever the powers that be are comfortable with for example would be a reasonable answer for anyone if they were given any indication what they might actually be.

Anyone have any idea what that might be?

No pointing in asking an average poster to give nunbers they would be happy with when there’s little guidance in regards to numbers or even criteria for measurement.

Maybe I missed it but there’s no reference to numbers being at a certain level in the road map.