Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

funnydoggy

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem I have with this is that I see it inevitable that the cases will keep rising. We'll soon have 1000 cases a day. What then? Continue to flounder? I don't think it's possible to to completely protect the elderly with so much of it going around. We'll suddenly be back where we were in March.

We may already have a much higher case count but given that the majority of cases are asymptomatic right now, we don't know.


If it hits 1000 again then it'll be a puzzle but given the guidelines have been with us for months now, I don't see it being a reality. I could be wrong though

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Government should really just butt out completely.
It is time to ditch all this nonsense of time limits and curfews etc.

You need to adjust to reality. You’re living in a dream world. How will you manage to cope by this time next year when we’ll likely still be in pretty much the same situation? Maybe you’ll get it by then.

funnydoggy

MadYaker wrote: »

You need to adjust to reality. You’re living in a dream world. How will you manage to cope by this time next year when we’ll likely still be in pretty much the same situation? Maybe you’ll get it by then.

There are numerous vaccines in development right now that are in or near finishing Phase 3 trials. If we're in the sh*t this time next year then something horrible has gone wrong but it's looking likely we'll have one short-medium term thankfully!

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Will you be disappointed if we're not?

Ah come on. Of course I don't want them to rise.

funnydoggy

funnydoggy wrote: »

We may already have a much higher case count but given that the majority of cases are asymptomatic right now, we don't know.


If it hits 1000 again then it'll be a puzzle but given the guidelines have been with us for months now, I don't see it being a reality. I could be wrong though

The other user was suggesting we open up completely. Copper face jacks included.

MadYaker

funnydoggy wrote: »

There are numerous vaccines in development right now that are in or near finishing Phase 3 trials. If we're in the sh*t this time next year then something horrible has gone wrong but it's looking likely we'll have one short-medium term thankfully!

Getting the vaccine through trials is one thing. Making billions of doses is something else entirely. Early 2022 at best. Manufacturing vaccines isn’t the same as manufacturing a car or even a normal prescription drug.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah come on. Of course I don't want them to rise.

Your comments suggests we have learnt nothing since March. We know who is most at risk. We have better treatments, we know the steps to take to mitigate spread. However keeping the country in a semi lockdown is not sustainable.

MadYaker

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Your comments suggests we have learnt nothing since March. We know who is most at risk. We have better treatments, we know the steps to take to mitigate spread. However keeping the country in a semi lockdown is not sustainable.

Cases continuing to rise indefinitely along with hospital and ICU capacity is less sustainable. Are you noticing a slow down because it’s actually the opposite. You think schools open will reduce the spread or increase it?

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Your comments suggests we have learnt nothing since March. We know who is most at risk. We have better treatments, we know the steps to take to mitigate spread. However keeping the country in a semi lockdown is not sustainable.

Sounds like you haven't learned anything either. We are taking the steps to mitigate the spread. Semi lockdown is the mitigation strategy. I can't see how opening up completely will not lead to this thing spiralling out of control again. How do you suggest we keep this away from the most vulnerable as cases rise.

end of the road

Lundstram wrote: »

I don’t want to quote that wall of pure sh1te, end of the road. In reply, I want to say you have no idea what’s happening in the rest of Europe if you think we have had the easiest restrictions. This is my third European country to be in since this all started and I can say without any hesitation the Irish people are being taken for fools by a massively over conservative government to make themselves look good.

We officially entered recession today but you won’t see that on RTÉ news. It’ll be buried somewhere where it can’t be noticed.

On the continent here now and not a whisper of this “deadly killer virus” except for mask wearing and social distancing. The way it should be.

Move on, Ireland!

that's interesting because i heard it mentioned on rte news that our economy has entered recession, but interestingly enough it's nothing near what was originally feared, and realistically it was probably going to happen no matter what we did as no economy could go unscaved from covid.
mask wearing and social distancing are the only real restrictions we have in ireland, with a few other oxillery bits to try and enforce that or keep numbers using a facility low as part of that, or to allow for tracing and to make it more difficult for certain establishments not to comply with restrictions.
absolutely our restrictions and whole approach was much easier then other countries who as mentioned, in some cases had the army on the streets and greater enforcement.
it doesn't mean things weren't hard for people, but we could have been much, much more heavily restricted then we were.
ireland moved on ages ago, we mostly reopened a couple of months ago now.

paw patrol wrote: »

he mightn't, i would open it all.
If you are worried don't go to those places. If you live with your granny then best not to go. But the rest of us should be allowed make those decisions for ourselves.


It's important to try keep the vulnerable alive and well but it's also important that we all (including your granny) have some quality of life.
the over 70s I know are angry their final years are being wasted in this climate of fear and boredom. they want out of this more than my teenager and his mates.

that wouldn't have been viable as it wouldn't have dealt with community transmission.
so therefore removing the decision making because some just don't get the message was necessary to suppress.

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like you haven't learned anything either. We are taking the steps to mitigate the spread. I can't see how opening up completely will not lead to this thing spiralling out of control again. How do you suggest we keep this away from the most vulnerable as cases rise.

The attitude of most people in this thread is that all those who are old or have underlying conditions should be locked up so they themselves don’t have to wear masks and can spend more than 90 minutes in a pub.

_Kaiser_

MadYaker wrote: »

Cases continuing to rise indefinitely along with hospital and ICU capacity is less sustainable. Are you noticing a slow down because it’s actually the opposite. You think schools open will reduce the spread or increase it?

Cases have been increasing for weeks now. Allowing for the incubation period of up to 14 days, where are the surges in hospital and ICU admissions? How many are critically ill and dying? Those are the numbers that matter - not new cases and the ever increasing total (since March! :rolleyes:)

Answer - they're not and there isn't because CV-19 is not anywhere near as dangerous to the under 60/70s.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like you haven't learned anything either. We are taking the steps to mitigate the spread. Semi lockdown is the mitigation strategy. I can't see how opening up completely will not lead to this thing spiralling out of control again. How do you suggest we keep this away from the most vulnerable as cases rise.

Semi lockdown is destroying the country, prehaps its time to help the vulnerable protect themselves.

Zebra3

MadYaker wrote: »

The attitude of most people in this thread is that all those who are old or have underlying conditions should be locked up so they themselves don’t have to wear masks and can spend more than 90 minutes in a pub.

Nobody has said old people should be locked up, but hey, why not make stuff up? :rolleyes:

It should be up to individuals to decide how to protect themselves.

I'm 20 years of age and in good health, I'm going for a few pints. Good luck, enjoy yourself.

I'm 70 years of age and in bad health, you know what, I'll skip the pub but head out for a walk down the local park.

I'm 40 years of age and in good health, oh I think I'll take in that football match at the weekend.

Not too difficult, is it?

Plumbthedepths

Being reported on RTE that the pubs can open on the 21st subject of restrictions. Although there is doubt if pubs in Dublin will open at the same time. I can only imagine the level of outrage this will cause if true.
I suspect alot of my elderly neighbours will be pleased. The pub was one of the few social outlets we have in the countryside.

_Kaiser_

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Semi lockdown is destroying the country, prehaps its time to help the vulnerable protect themselves.

Personal responsibility is the key here. I know it's unfashionable nowadays but people need to look after their own health and safety with support from their GP if needed, and not make stupid or risky decisions that will jeopardise their health or someone elses.

But we cannot keep limping along in a perpetual state of semi-lockdown, restrictions that are damaging business and people's mental health, and uncertainty.

We are now officially back in recession. The ability to kick the problems caused in the last 6 months has come to an end. It's time to shift the focus to protecting jobs, business, the economy and yes - still look out for those who are ACTUALLY at risk from CV-19. Everyone else needs to get back to work, back to spending money and socialising, and back to normal.

end of the road

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody has said old people should be locked up, but hey, why not make stuff up? :rolleyes:

It should be up to individuals to decide how to protect themselves.

I'm 20 years of age and in good health, I'm going for a few pints. Good luck, enjoy yourself.

I'm 70 years of age and in bad health, you know what, I'll skip the pub but head out for a walk down the local park.

I'm 40 years of age and in good health, oh I think I'll take in that football match at the weekend.

Not too difficult, is it?

they haven't said it, but the fact is that what you and some others propose would lead to exactly that, yet would ultimately still provide no protection for such people because community transmission would have been rife.
it is already up to individuals to decide how they protect themselves once they abide by the restrictions in place, simply leaving things up to individuals to decide wouldn't have been viable due to compliance issues and the fact as i already mentioned, it wouldn't have dealt with the community transmission issue.
implementing temporary lockdown and restrictions was the only way to actually protect the vulnerable.

Zebra3

Why do we allow cars on the road then when so many people are being killed each year through air pollution?

Why does nobody care about those deaths?

Why don't we keep the country in permanent lockdown to prevent deaths from air pollution?

funnydoggy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We are now officially back in recession. The ability to kick the problems caused in the last 6 months has come to an end. It's time to shift the focus to protecting jobs, business, the economy and yes - still look out for those who are ACTUALLY at risk from CV-19. Everyone else needs to get back to work, back to spending money and socialising, and back to normal.

I'm on the fence with this whole relaxation of restrictions thing but damn, that really hit hard.

end of the road

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Personal responsibility is the key here. I know it's unfashionable nowadays but people need to look after their own health and safety with support from their GP if needed, and not make stupid or risky decisions that will jeopardise their health or someone elses.

that is already the case, it still doesn't change the fact that what you want or wanted couldn't have been delivered if we were to suppress the virus so we could live with it.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But we cannot keep limping along in a perpetual state of semi-lockdown, restrictions that are damaging business and people's mental health, and uncertainty.

what semi-lockdown, we are more or less open.
if it wasn't restrictions damaging business, it would probably be less custom due to less people being out.
as for mental health, that's an unfortunate ongoing issue and needs the relevant treatment but it is not an argument against restrictions and lockdown, i'm afraid.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We are now officially back in recession. The ability to kick the problems caused in the last 6 months has come to an end. It's time to shift the focus to protecting jobs, business, the economy and yes - still look out for those who are ACTUALLY at risk from CV-19. Everyone else needs to get back to work, back to spending money and socialising, and back to normal.

protecting jobs, business and the economy as much as could be was the whole point of our approach, it was recognised by the powers that be that protecting the economy from the effects of covid just wasn't really possible, hence the balancing act.
there are going to be changes whether it be working from home, people revaluing as to what they spend money on, etc and where and whether they spend it, etc.

end of the road

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why do we allow cars on the road then when so many people are being killed each year through air pollution?

Why does nobody care about those deaths?

Why don't we keep the country in permanent lockdown to prevent deaths from air pollution?

technology in motorised vehicles is changing all the time to make them less polluting, because we recognise pollution is a serious issue, and obviously do care about those deaths hence trying to address it.
your attempted comparrison is invalid and nonsense.

Penfailed

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why do we allow cars on the road then when so many people are being killed each year through air pollution?

Why does nobody care about those deaths?

Why don't we keep the country in permanent lockdown to prevent deaths from air pollution?

Ha! People do care about those deaths. That's why many towns are being bypassed to not only ease congestion but to improve the air quality in those towns. That's why electric vehicles are being developed. Can you see the flaws in your argument?

HeidiHeidi

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody has said old people should be locked up, but hey, why not make stuff up? :rolleyes:

It should be up to individuals to decide how to protect themselves.

I'm 20 years of age and in good health, I'm going for a few pints. Good luck, enjoy yourself.

I'm 70 years of age and in bad health, you know what, I'll skip the pub but head out for a walk down the local park.

I'm 40 years of age and in good health, oh I think I'll take in that football match at the weekend.

Not too difficult, is it?

This would work beautifully if we weren't dealing with a virus that is wildly contagious, even (especially) while the sufferer is asymptomatic.


So you, the 20-year old go for your few pints, and pick it up off a fellow reveller, but you've no idea - then go home where you go on to infect your elderly or vulnerable parents, or your sister who works in a hospital or an old-folks-home, or any other of a myriad of scenarios where the virus is spread to vulnerable people who can't cope as well with it as you, the invincible young.


Every (wo)man for him/herself doesn't work with a highly contagious virus.

JDD

what semi-lockdown, we are more or less open.
if it wasn't restrictions damaging business, it would probably be less custom due to less people being out.
as for mental health, that's an unfortunate ongoing issue and needs the relevant treatment but it is not an argument against restrictions and lockdown, i'm afraid.

I sort of agree and disagree with you here. If we take the example of weddings and getting rid of the limit on attendance numbers, well, we'd have much more weddings going on for a start. And those attendees would be buying outfits and attending hairdressers and buying presents and booze and staying overnight in hotels. And we would probably have higher daily infection numbers, due to the increase in numbers allowed at larger events, and that would certainly turn some people away from attending that wedding. But would the numbers at each wedding reduce down to 50? Doubtful. Same as sports matches.

I think people are looking at Sweden at the start of all the european lockdowns, and seeing that - despite the lack of lockdown there - most people stayed away from the shops and gyms and large events because of the fear of catching or spreading covid. So they had a deep effect on their economy anyway (though not as bad as ours). Remember, this was at the time we were looking at the pictures coming out from Italy and Iran.

Things are different now. If we relaxed restrictions further, and even if we had escalating infection numbers, I don't think it would put off the majority of attendees. Which would be good for the economy. Now, whether you think that's an acceptable balance of economy vs infections, well that will depend on the person. But I don't necessarily think, at this point in time, that increased infections will stop the majority of people from attempting to return to normal.

_Kaiser_

funnydoggy wrote: »

I'm on the fence with this whole relaxation of restrictions thing but damn, that really hit hard.

It has to mate. That's the reality of where we are now.

Watch now as the response from Government finally starts to shift with that in mind. Leo was flagging it weeks ago with comments about herd immunity. Now they're finally accepting pubs need to reopen (despite rising cases which has been pitched as the headline issue in the last 2/3 months - coincidentally around the time people stopped dying from CV-19), schools will be kept open (partly because Micheal Martin staked his flag on it but also because they need parents back at work), and you'll see this attitude change increase as the Budget gets closer.

The banks are under pressure yet again (so much for reform and greater oversight - not that that was ever going to REALLY be a thing!), much of the SME sector and local economy is struggling under rules that are restricting their ability to trade sustainably, and still too many are getting the "emergency" payments, and of course the fallout from Brexit is heating up again in recent days.

As everyone is keen to point out (and rightly so) when it comes to the Left, there IS no magic money tree. Our "friends" in the EU have left us to swing with regards to aid, and we can do very little with taxes given that we never fully recovered from the last round of recession, nor can we simply fire up the printing presses or mess with our currency valuation to retain the competitive edge our small, open, completely FDI-dependent economy needs in these times.

Economic reality is about to hit hard and CV-19 will take a backseat to political and financial pragmatism.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why do we allow cars on the road then when so many people are being killed each year through air pollution?

Why does nobody care about those deaths?

Why don't we keep the country in permanent lockdown to prevent deaths from air pollution?

This argument needs to die. Air pollution is not a highly infectious virus that is passed from person to person.

Zebra3

end of the road wrote: »

technology in motorised vehicles is changing all the time to make them less polluting, because we recognise pollution is a serious issue, and obviously do care about those deaths hence trying to address it.
your attempted comparrison is invalid and nonsense.

People are continuing to die right now due to air pollution from vehicles, but these deaths it seems aren't important.

We need an immediate lockdown to save the lives of the vulnerable.

Sadly, too many selfish people out there want to continue using their cars and they just don't care about those they are currently killing.

A hierarchy of victims is what we have now.

Penfailed wrote: »

Ha! People do care about those deaths. That's why many towns are being bypassed to not only ease congestion but to improve the air quality in those towns. That's why electric vehicles are being developed. Can you see the flaws in your argument?

People don't care about those deaths. People continue to use their cars like they have always done and continue to kill people.

Towns are bypassed and the the local roads become full of local traffic and the air pollution stays as bad as it is.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

This would work beautifully if we weren't dealing with a virus that is wildly contagious, even (especially) while the sufferer is asymptomatic.


So you, the 20-year old go for your few pints, and pick it up off a fellow reveller, but you've no idea - then go home where you go on to infect your elderly or vulnerable parents, or your sister who works in a hospital or an old-folks-home, or any other of a myriad of scenarios where the virus is spread to vulnerable people who can't cope as well with it as you, the invincible young.


Every (wo)man for him/herself doesn't work with a highly contagious virus.

So you the 20 year old gets in to their car and goes off driving it around contributing to deaths but you don't care.

Every (wo)man for him/herself doesn't work with deadly air pollution.

If a selfish 20 year old puts their relations at risk, that's their fault.

HeidiHeidi

Zebra3 wrote: »

People are continuing to die right now due to air pollution from vehicles, but these deaths it seems aren't important.

We need an immediate lockdown to save the lives of the vulnerable.

Sadly, too many selfish people out there want to continue using their cars and they just don't care about those they are currently killing.

A hierarchy of victims is what we have now.



People don't care about those deaths. People continue to use their cars like they have always done and continue to kill people.

Towns are bypassed and the the local roads become full of local traffic and the air pollution stays as bad as it is.



So you the 20 year old gets in to their car and goes off driving it around contributing to deaths but you don't care.

Every (wo)man for him/herself doesn't work with deadly air pollution.

If a selfish 20 year old puts their relations at risk, that's their fault.

No matter how many times you repeat it, air pollution is not equivalent to a highly contagious airborne virus.

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

This argument needs to die. Air pollution is not a highly infectious virus that is passed from person to person.

A highly infectious virus that doesn't actually significantly (if at all) affect the vast majority of the people who catch it.

patnor1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Roughly 67% required to reach herd immunity. Worst case scenario, over 3 million people in Ireland would get it.

You forget that quite a lot of people already had it. Most of them didn't even realize it. And the same is in store for the rest but there will be a lot of time till it happens.