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

hmmm

road_high wrote: »

Pinning all hopes basically on the off chance we have a safe, effective and registered vaccine (with the massive regulatory process that involves) seems fanciful to me given the timelines, but I do hope I’m proven wrong.

It's not an off-chance, the most likely scenario is that we will have a vaccine, and we will know if we have a vaccine within the next few months. Here's a good overview: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Agreed it will take some time to manufacture, but some of the leading candidates are already being manufactured in the hope they will be approved. It won't be given to everyone overnight, but it's reasonable to expect health staff to get it first, and the general public will see it in mid-2021.

The regulators are working alongside the vaccine developers to scrutinise what they are doing. Normally this all happens at the end. The regulators have already forced Moderna to change their testing because they decided it wasn't sufficient.

The difference this time is that multiple phases are being done in parallel. Normally vaccines take ages because everything is done one after another, this time we are running as many things in parallel is possible. It still takes the same total time to develop, approve and manufacture the vaccines, but the elapsed time is far less.

Polar101

setanta1984 wrote: »

It's telling you still refuse to answer the straight question.

I can only deduce then that you would be happy for life to stay like this for however many years it takes for the vaccine/treatment to arrive or forever if it doesn't.

Are you making a list of people who accept your reasoning? We might have a vaccine in a year. The world might end in 5 years. I think it's more likely we'll have a vaccine. If we do, then a lot of things might go back to normal - eventually - after a lot of all kinds of difficulties. If we don't get a vaccine, then we'll learn how to live with the virus and life goes on. Those are the options. Or are there others?

Thierry12

Micky 32 wrote: »

Why not? Won’t it help break the chain of spread? A vaccine doesn’t need to be 100% effective.

Why should young healthy people who wont get sick inject themselves with a bloody virus?

How does that make sense?

Does that seem natural or ethical to you?

In what world do you inject people who wont get symptoms with a virus?

No symptoms, completely harmless to them, wouldnt even know they were infected

Its insane imo

It shouldn't be forced upon them

We dont give 10 year olds flu jabs for good reason

Same with chicken pox jab

Its funny thay know one is talking about the immune compromised not being suitable for the Covid vaccine?

Moderna the leading vaccine candidate had to be pressured to include hiv infected in the trial

Strange to leave out a group that have 40 million people living with the disease

Immune compromised are not suitable for chicken pox vaccine and many many other vaccines

I've asked our resident doctor hmmmm about it, but he ignored the post

John O.Groats

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why should young healthy people who wont get sick inject themselves with a bloody virus?

How does that make sense?

Does that seem natural or ethical to you?

In what world do you inject people who wont get symptoms with a virus?

No symptoms, completely harmless to them, wouldnt even know they were infected

Its insane imo

It shouldn't be forced upon them

We dont give 10 year olds flu jabs for good reason

Same with chicken pox jab

Its funny thay know one is talking about the immune compromised not being suitable for the Covid vaccine?

Moderna the leading vaccine candidate had to be pressured to include hiv infected in the trial

Strange to leave out a group that have 40 million people living with the disease

Immune compromised are not suitable for chicken pox vaccine and many many other vaccines

I've asked our resident doctor hmmmm about it, but he ignored the post

You are clearly an anti vaxxer. Everything I bolded in your post is completely false.

Micky 32

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why should young healthy people who wont get sick inject themselves with a bloody virus?

How does that make sense?

Does that seem natural or ethical to you?

In what world do you inject people who wont get symptoms with a virus?

No symptoms, completely harmless to them, wouldnt even know they were infected

Its insane imo

It shouldn't be forced upon them

We dont give 10 year olds flu jabs for good reason

Same with chicken pox jab

Its funny thay know one is talking about the immune compromised not being suitable for the Covid vaccine?

Moderna the leading vaccine candidate had to be pressured to include hiv infected in the trial

Strange to leave out a group that have 40 million people living with the disease

Immune compromised are not suitable for chicken pox vaccine and many many other vaccines

I've asked our resident doctor hmmmm about it, but he ignored the post

I won’t bother my arse replying to your questions because it’s clear you don’t understand how the vaccine works, good luck

Thierry12

John O.Groats wrote: »

You are clearly an anti vaxxer. Everything I bolded in your post is completely false.

Its not anti vaxxer

Refusing a flu jab at 60 is anti vaxxer

How old are you?

Do you get vaccines?

Thierry12

Micky 32 wrote: »

I won’t bother my arse replying to your questions because it’s clear you don’t understand how the vaccine works, good luck

How do they work then?

Do we vaccinate for other harmless viruses?

John O.Groats

John O.Groats wrote: »

You are clearly an anti vaxxer. Everything I bolded in your post is completely false.

The Times poll in the UK found a couple of days ago that 50% of people said that they wouldn’t take the vaccine and another percentage (can’t remember the number) said they’d be reluctant. Not all those people are anti vaxxers. I think that the vaccine is going to be a genuinely hard sell

Bit cynical

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why should young healthy people who wont get sick inject themselves with a bloody virus?

How does that make sense?

Does that seem natural or ethical to you?

In what world do you inject people who wont get symptoms with a virus?

No symptoms, completely harmless to them, wouldnt even know they were infected

It is believed that young healthy people can still be spreaders of the virus to more vulnerable sections of the population even if they don't personally suffer serious illness from it. So from an altruistic point of view it makes sense to take the vaccine. In fact it makes more sense for the active healthy population to take it for that reason than those more directly in danger of the virus as they are the more active spreaders.

bettyoleary

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is believed that young healthy people can still be spreaders of the virus to more vulnerable sections of the population even if they don't personally suffer serious illness from it. So from an altruistic point of view it makes sense to take the vaccine. In fact it makes more sense for the active healthy population to take it for that reason than those more directly in danger of the virus as they are the more active spreaders.

Alot of young people are very ill with the virus , they are fat , overweight and unfit. Never out of mcdonalds and drinking. Put a mask on lard arses.

bettyoleary

Micky 32 wrote: »

I won’t bother my arse replying to your questions because it’s clear you don’t understand how the vaccine works, good luck

But you should get it because if your young in Ireland your prob pasty, over weight and unhealthy. Get the vaccine and stop putting people at risk

LuckyLloyd

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So anyway - since this is the relaxation thread am I right in saying this is the end of relaxations? With our current approach this is as far as we can open up? And schools and colleges may tip us over the edge anyway? No phase 4 ever and forget about pubs and nightclubs and concerts and matches and everything? Suck it up if you're 22, you can always find a girlfriend when you're 30? This is the new normal? Its pretty ****in straight and you better get used to it?

Yes.

You won't be waiting until you're 30, but you'll probably be waiting until you're 23. It's a once in a century type public health crisis.

Diabhalta

Like seriously what the hell is this? ..totally spamming my whole newsfeed on Facebook with this garbage.

Ireland sees Covid-19 cases rise by 57, 70% under the age of 45
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40030313.html

just keeping it going for months and months and covid being shoved into everyone's face on daily basis. They should just stfu and gtfo. There should be a daily limit like one article covering everything in one go.

LuckyLloyd

setanta1984 wrote: »

And what if there is no vaccine next year? Or for 5 years, or ever?

The assumption that we can stay like this because of this wing and prayer for a magic bullet vaccine is bananas, and is in reality a desire to stay like this in perpetuity. Or is there a cut off point? And if there is, what is that plan? And whats the point in waiting for months or years of misery first. We should be getting on with it.

Otherwise whats the point of anything? Throw away modern life? That is not acceptable to me and shouldn't be for most. Wear a mask for the rest of existence and throw away everything that is currently banned/not happening? Life has to go on. We're just self inflicting misery until that penny drops.

We'll know whether we'll have a vaccine next year before this year is out, which renders the rest of your post irrelevant.

If multiple phase 3 trials fail in the Autumn we may have to seriously think of a different approach alright. But I'm not really sure what that might be - it won't be 'open everything and face the virus like men'.

Thierry12

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is believed that young healthy people can still be spreaders of the virus to more vulnerable sections of the population even if they don't personally suffer serious illness from it. So from an altruistic point of view it makes sense to take the vaccine. In fact it makes more sense for the active healthy population to take it for that reason than those more directly in danger of the virus as they are the more active spreaders.

Yes thats whats going to happen alright

Looking very likely vaccine wont be given to immune compromised

Pharmas dont even want them in the trials

I will be getting the vaccine because I dont want to kill my parents, otherwise I wouldn't be getting it, but will have to.

Is that ethical?

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If multiple phase 3 trials fail in the Autumn we may have to seriously think of a different approach alright. But I'm not really sure what that might be - it won't be 'open everything and face the virus like men'.

That might not be the official government line at that time, but that for sure is the approach that society will take.

Micky 32

Thierry12 wrote: »

I will be getting the vaccine because I dont want to kill my parents, otherwise I wouldn't be getting it, but will have to.
?

My god, you actually now got it ;-)

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

That might not be the official government line at that time, but that for sure is the approach that society will take.

Do not let this thread confuse you: a large portion of society takes this all very seriously.

Thierry12

Micky 32 wrote: »

My god, you actually now got it ;-)

Its not natural

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Do not let this thread confuse you: a large portion of society takes this all very seriously.

Now, sure

In 12 months time if we are in the same position? That portion will be a good bit smaller

Bit cynical

Thierry12 wrote: »

Yes thats whats going to happen alright

Looking very likely vaccine wont be given to immune compromised

Pharmas dont even want them in the trials

I will be getting the vaccine because I dont want to kill my parents, otherwise I wouldn't be getting it, but will have to.

Is that ethical?

While I don't know if there's going to be compulsory vaccination, I do think there are ethical considerations in forcing people to take something that may have a small amount of risk if it does come down to that.

However, altruism and duty are probably more relevant in this situation. You take a small amount of risk but you get to do something for your country and you then benefit from being in a country that can finally get back to normal.

There have been far worse sacrifices people have been called upon to make in times gone by. Ideally people volunteer but failing that compulsion has been employed. Even now, people are putting themselves forward entirely voluntarily for "challenge trials" of vaccines where they take the vaccine and then are deliberately infected with the virus to see if it is effective. They do this for the greater good of humanity and at far greater risk to themselves than anything you or I may be asked to do.

Diabhalta

Staycation 2020

Diabhalta

I think I'm gonna get myself one of these... it's getting pretty serious out there, better be safe!

57 cases today, what if it's 58 tomorrow, or even 158? Damn numbers!

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

You've already made your mind up, but for most people the restrictions are sustainable while we wait for a vaccine and better treatments. Wearing a mask isn't going to kill us.

What's your advice to people who are either single or in non-cohabiting relationships? Should people literally remain celibate indefinitely? That's the real crux of why social distancing seems insurmountable for another protracted period for so many young people and it's the one issue that isn't being talked about. It might sound ridiculous to people who are either asexual or in a live-in relationship, but for the vast majority of people the long term lack of physical contact from the opposite sex, especially people who are used to having it in their lives, truly is going to cause a mental health crisis. It's utterly ridiculous for anyone to claim otherwise.

Without clubs, social occasions, college life, etc - and with a 2m social distance requirement for strangers interacting with eachother, sexual relationships between people who won't live together are essentially banned. That's why so many people are desperate for social outlets to reopen. Not drink. For single people it's about the opportunity to meet someone, for people in non live-in relationships they're scratching their heads and wondering how long it'll be before they can hang out with their partners and share a hug or a kiss, let alone anything more.

The current paradigm of "social distancing is here until there's a vaccine, even if that's months or years away" is devastatingly depressing to anyone fitting in to the category of people who (a) have a normal sex drive, and (b) aren't living with a partner.

I guarantee you this is the main driving force behind people like the poster you quoted who are so eager for ordinary social life to resume. Dressing it up as an obsession with alcohol is in my view a total red herring considering alcohol is widely available in shops and can be consumed at home. What people are missing are the settings where it's socially acceptable to chat up a stranger with the door open to forming any kind of physical relationship. What people are missing is being able to meet their partner who lives in a different household and stand closer than 2m away to touch eachother.

All of these are basic, ordinary, everyday human interactions for many people and it's entirely unnatural for people to live without those things long term. It is widely known as a genuine cause of mental health issues and it's utterly ridiculous that people are overlooking this fundamental aspect of social distancing when attacking those who don't find a potential waiting period of six months or more acceptable - those people are looking at a genuine prospect of being single and sexually lonely for that entire period, or - arguably even worse - having a partner but not being able to kiss, hug or anything else because that partner lives in a different household, potentially even an unavoidable public transport trip away.

Are those people supposed to accept the possibility that they could miss out on physical interaction with another human for years?

There has to be a contingency plan which negates this, because regardless of whether you want to accuse people of being selfish or anything else, the bottom line is that this cannot be maintained. People are going to ignore it. People are going to break the rules, Romeo and Juliet style, to sneak away with someone else and get the shift or the ride without caring about the rules they're breaking. The sexual instinct in humans is not something one can simple override for months or years regardless of the circumstances, eventually people will[/b] break the rules because they're horny.

That's why people will throw illegal house parties in the absence of pubs reopening. That's why people will meet people they're not supposed to meet at anything closer than a 2m distance. That's why people will exchange bodily fluids without wearing a mask. And this is something which must be addressed, because expecting the entire single or non co-habiting population of this country to forgo sexual interaction for much longer is simply not going to be possible. Regardless of what you think of people who do so, it won't change the fact that people will begin to take the risk if there isn't a realistic light at the end of the tunnel. That cannot be "wait until there's a vaccine even if that means spending half a decade without a sexual encounter". Whatever you think of the morality thereof is irrelevant - it's not going to happen. People will break, and when they do, they'll break the rules. That's a basic law of human nature - the vast majority of people are not wired to go without physical contact, simple as that.

Great post. The fact is that for many people, probably the majority, the measures are not sustainable. If there is no vaccine next year, most people will just face into it, and bring some normalcy back to their lives. It might not be in Coppers, but it will be somewhere just as crowded and just as messy. Those who think otherwise are living in their protected bubble, WFH and probably in a happy relationship

MadYaker

“Sexual relationships between people are banned” :pac: no, they aren’t. Such a load of nonsense in one post. You can go on a date you know. It isn’t banned. A lot of people in this thread need to grow up and start dealing with reality. Yes things are different to before but it’s temporary. It’s time to grow a pair and stop whinging. If you’re dumb enough to keep yourself at arms length from your partner just because you don’t live with them then that’s you I’m afraid.

hatrickpatrick

MadYaker wrote: »

“Sexual relationships between people are banned” :pac: no, they aren’t. Such a load of nonsense in one post. You can go on a date you know. It isn’t banned. A lot of people in this thread need to grow up and start dealing with reality.

How, exactly? If you're supposed to keep a persistent 2m social distance from anyone who doesn't live in your household? Honest question. Either there are unspoken exceptions to the social distancing measures, which should be spelled out officially for the sake of clarity, or you're wrong. Simple as that.

Yes things are different to before but it’s temporary.

The particular conversation you've jumped in to here is about the potential for social distancing to be quasi-permanent or last for years. Pay attention.

It’s time to grow a pair and stop whinging. If you’re dumb enough to keep yourself at arms length from your partner just because you don’t live with them then that’s you I’m afraid.

So you're advising people to ignore the restrictions and yet also accusing people questioning the sustainability of the restrictions of needing to grow up? Which is it? The restrictions explicitly state that people have to remain 2m away from others who do not live in the same household. If there's is an exception to this rule for "conjugal" purposes, I must have missed it. Hell, we're living in a reality in which people are being dissuaded from hugging their blood relatives FFS - how can you claim that under the current guidelines, sexual interactions between people from different households and new sexual relationships between hitherto strangers are not discouraged?

Diabhalta

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What's your advice to people who are either single or in non-cohabiting relationships? Should people literally remain celibate indefinitely?

hookers.

Diabhalta

Weekend crowds at Wexford beaches beyond ‘all previous numbers
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/weekend-crowds-at-wexford-beaches-beyond-all-previous-numbers-1.4326954?mode=amp

Don't travel abroad, don't go to the beach either.

So what exactly can you do in this country? Plenty of space on the beach so what's the fuss about? People don't socially distance in shops, are the guards called too?

It's absolutely ridiculous. Virus usually spreads in indoor settings, like office or meat plant. You really won't get it on the beach. People went totally stupid.

Can't wait for my flight out of this mad place.

md23040

Just listening to RTE speak about the cases per 100,000 of Covid being higher in Ireland compared to the UK, and them saying if you strip out the three quarantined counties then it’s lower.

OMG even Trump wouldn’t be that dumb to say something as stupid as that.