Covid 19 Part XXVII- 62,002 ROI (1,915 deaths) 39,609 NI (724 deaths) (02/11) Read OP

Thierry12

pjohnson wrote: »

:pac:

Why the laugh?

China class asymptomatic cases as low risk and a waste of time and resources tracking cases for a disease they dont have and won't spread

You want to catch the contagious people

China have shown up the western world as a pack of fools

MelbourneMan

is_that_so wrote: »

The plan for now seem to be , 6 weeks of this, then Level 3 on Dec 1 and ideally Level 2 at or around Christmas. All subject to change of course.

Hello. The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status. The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

Thierry12

manniot2 wrote: »

Hilarious

Is he sick? No

Is he contagious? Very very unlikely

Do you see his point now?

Thierry12

Thierry12 wrote: »

Why the laugh?

China class asymptomatic cases as low risk and a waste of time and resources tracking cases for a disease they dont have and won't spread

You want to catch the contagious people

China have shown up the western world as a pack of fools

Absolutely correct. Initial Chinese reaction - we don't know what it is - lock down everything and suppress it. Current Chinese reaction - we know and understand it better and use the most cost effective methods to control it.

Tbe West has taken the diametrically opposite approach, letting it run rampant and then coming up with a farcical zero covid strategy when it is far too late and also leaving routes of reinfection fully open. Spending billions, closing society down and still not suppressing the virus or protecting the vulnerable or care homes properly.. Neither fish nor fowl.

Van.Bosch

I don’t get the whole “get the numbers down and have a normal Christmas” lark. Even on Level 1 people need to social distance if not in the same households. So if going to a restaurant or having people over for dinner, you can’t share a table unless it’s huge.

Now most people will ignore this which I get but there is never any mention of it, maybe NPHET are happy for it to happen without shouting about it or know it can’t be implemented.

is_that_so

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status. The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

Level 3+ is not a viable long term solution as it is socially very destructive. That kind of thinking is really beyond NPHET and it presumes that they will be incapable of finding other means of managing the disease. Now that may not happen but they should be pushed to do a lot more than just recommending moving us up and down levels. Whatever about the flaws of the government plan it does show a willingness to find other ways.

funnydoggy

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status. The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

I still have my suspicions you're a member of NPHET If so we have our Christmas plan right there folks!

manniot2

Thierry12 wrote: »

Is he sick? No

Is he contagious? Very very unlikely

Do you see his point now?

I meant hilarious that someone like Ronaldo is saying the pcr is a joke. Which we all know.

MelbourneMan

is_that_so wrote: »

Level 3+ is not a viable long term solution as it is socially very destructive. That kind of thinking is beyond NPHET and it presumes that they will be incapable of finding other means of managing the disease. Now that may not happen but they should be pushed to do a lot more than just recommend moving us up and down levels.

Hello. You are correct, and it is indeed now the goal to avoid a constant moving up and down of levels, but this entails a steady state level, which will be a Level 3 variant. Despite its difficulties, it is considered preferable to uncertainty, confusion, and the continual disruption to society and the economy of rolling changes. There is unfortunately no alternative in the medium term.

is_that_so

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I don’t get the whole “get the numbers down and have a normal Christmas” lark. Even on Level 1 people need to social distance if not in the same households. So if going to a restaurant or having people over for dinner, you can’t share a table unless it’s huge.

Now most people will ignore this which I get but there is never any mention of it, maybe NPHET are happy for it to happen without shouting about it or know it can’t be implemented.

It's a reward strategy and if it's available people will do their best to work around it, especially for the time of year that's in it.

MelbourneMan

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. The more likely scenario being proposed is more of a modified Level 3 for the long term, with very limited - in the order of a single digit number of days - exemptions which will apply on specific dates, only to facilitate some semblance of normal family celebrations. This will not include large gatherings, the likes of Christmas parties or outings etc, nor an open, indefinite period of weeks or months of this status. The goal is to achieve a steady state level of restrictions which can facilitate a handful of days when effectively the rules dont apply. As long as these number of days are below a threshold, and Level 3, or localised time limited targeted higher restrictions, they will not have a deleterious effect on our management of the chains of transmission.

If this is long term you have to ask if its actually better to just take the hit - and let the survivors get on with life. This vista is worse than the worst projections.

is_that_so

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. You are correct, and it is indeed now the goal to avoid a constant moving up and down of levels, but this entails a steady state level, which will be a Level 3 variant. Despite its difficulties, it is considered preferable to uncertainty, confusion, and the continual disruption to society and the economy of rolling changes. There is unfortunately no alternative in the medium term.

I think it's a political non-runner and NPHET are not in the government's good books anymore. They cannot continue to trot out a March 2020 playbook every time things start to look bad. The financial and economic cost will start to play an ever bigger part in this debate, never mind the challenges to the mental wellbeing of the populace.

prunudo

MelbourneMan wrote: »

Hello. You are correct, and it is indeed now the goal to avoid a constant moving up and down of levels, but this entails a steady state level, which will be a Level 3 variant. Despite its difficulties, it is considered preferable to uncertainty, confusion, and the continual disruption to society and the economy of rolling changes. There is unfortunately no alternative in the medium term.

I don't think it will be possible to find a constant steady level to live with it. What needs to happen is a balance between a level 2 and level 3. Then move between as needed. This nonsense of letting things get so bad that we had to go from 2 to 5 can't go on. Also i think that businesses and retail should be left open once they aren't known places of infection. By all means limit numbers of people entering or gathering together. But people should be allowed contuine to live and make a living.

circadian

prunudo wrote: »

I don't think it will be possible to find a constant steady level to live with it. What needs to happen is a balance between a level 2 and level 3. Then move between as needed. This nonsense of letting things get so bad that we had to go from 2 to 5 can't go on. Also i think that businesses and retail should be left open once they aren't known places of infection. By all means limit numbers of people entering or gathering together. But people should be allowed contuine to live and make a living.

I would agree with this but it involves buy in from the populace and the community to police itself and follow the guidelines. We're now at level 5 as a result of that being unsustainable. As a population we just aren't disciplined enough to maintain the efforts for any great length of time.

I am not saying the entire country is incapable of it but as we've seen it takes a tiny cohort to flaunt the efforts of everyone else to cause a rapid rise in cases. We've shown as a nation we cannot police this between ourselves.

prunudo

circadian wrote: »

I would agree with this but it involves buy in from the populace and the community to police itself and follow the guidelines. We're now at level 5 as a result of that being unsustainable. As a population we just aren't disciplined enough to maintain the efforts for any great length of time.

I am not saying the entire country is incapable of it but as we've seen it takes a tiny cohort to flaunt the efforts of everyone else to cause a rapid rise in cases. We've shown as a nation we cannot police this between ourselves.

I was thinking this the other day, a lot of it comes down to human behaviours and how everyone is different. You'll never get 100% buy in and vast majority do their best. Its to stop or certainly manage the large indoor gatherings that is the tricky part.
I don't think anyone in those gaa vidoes set out to be dancing and jumping around on top of eachother but unfortunately over the course of a night and with drink involved its inevitable.
Most people can adhere to a restaurant or pub guidelines, its as the night wears on and things get rowdy that the precautions slip.

iamwhoiam

circadian wrote: »

I would agree with this but it involves buy in from the populace and the community to police itself and follow the guidelines. We're now at level 5 as a result of that being unsustainable. As a population we just aren't disciplined enough to maintain the efforts for any great length of time.

I am not saying the entire country is incapable of it but as we've seen it takes a tiny cohort to flaunt the efforts of everyone else to cause a rapid rise in cases. We've shown as a nation we cannot police this between ourselves.

What we need is enforcement . Nothing at all will work until its enforced . We can go to level 302 and still the same people will flaunt it

MerlinSouthDub

prunudo wrote: »

I don't think it will be possible to find a constant steady level to live with it. What needs to happen is a balance between a level 2 and level 3. Then move between as needed. This nonsense of letting things get so bad that we had to go from 2 to 5 can't go on. Also i think that businesses and retail should be left open once they aren't known places of infection. By all means limit numbers of people entering or gathering together. But people should be allowed contuine to live and make a living.

I like the idea of swapping between levels 2 and 3. Ideally in a planned way, with say level 2 for 6 weeks, followed by level 3 for 3 weeks. And with some capacity limits when in level 2 as you mention

mloc123

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

I like the idea of swapping between levels 2 and 3. Ideally in a planned way, with say level 2 for 6 weeks, followed by level 3 for 3 weeks. And with some capacity limits when in level 2 as you mention

I expect we will have level 3 indefinitely after level 5 gets the current spike under control.

iamwhoiam

mloc123 wrote: »

I expect we will have level 3 indefinitely after level 5 gets the current spike under control.

No one in your home or garden indefinitely ? No one will adhere to that

mloc123

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No one in your home or garden indefinitely ? No one will adhere to that

That was not level 3... That was the tweaked level 3? Iirc level 3 was up to 6 people.in a house?

Could see them dropping the county limit from it too, since county level restrictions are done now.

obi604

Are car washing services closed for Level 5?

harr

While I agree somewhat with the idea of filtering between level 2 and 3 depending on numbers but I would hate the idea of a prolonged level 3 approach , the idea of having to stay in your own County for months on end is a depressing taught.
It might work for people in the larger counties where services are better and have a city centre or larger towns but for people in a smaller county it would be a nightmare

Happydays2020

is_that_so wrote: »

Level 3+ is not a viable long term solution as it is socially very destructive. That kind of thinking is really beyond NPHET and it presumes that they will be incapable of finding other means of managing the disease. Now that may not happen but they should be pushed to do a lot more than just recommending moving us up and down levels. Whatever about the flaws of the government plan it does show a willingness to find other ways.

What is interesting is that many here saw that the big problem was the unregulated side of things such as house parties, communion parties etc. NPHET seem to see risks on retail that no one else does. Perhaps it is mindset of lock down...

prunudo

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

I like the idea of swapping between levels 2 and 3. Ideally in a planned way, with say level 2 for 6 weeks, followed by level 3 for 3 weeks. And with some capacity limits when in level 2 as you mention

At the end of the day, I don't know what the answer is, but the current set up isn't working. And I know its all ifs, buts and maybes but maybe nphet should have moved to a nationwide 3 earlier then it would have given us more time.
Rather than individual county restrictions, maybe we need to create blocks. Not province, but say if Dublin slips then apply restrictions to Louth, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow also. It should also depend on size of a county and where the cases are highest. No point dragging Kerry into restrictions if all of Corks cases are on the east of the county.
Blanket restrictions may work for dropping numbers nationwide but they aren't sustainable long term.

is_that_so

harr wrote: »

While I agree somewhat with the idea of filtering between level 2 and 3 depending on numbers but I would hate the idea of a prolonged level 3 approach , the idea of having to stay in your own County for months on end is a depressing taught.
It work for people in the larger counties where services are better and have a city centre or larger towns but for people in smaller a county it would be a nightmare

It also kills the hospitality sector stone dead in many places.

mloc123

prunudo wrote: »

At the end of the day, I don't know what the answer is, but the current set up isn't working. And I know its all ifs, buts and maybes but maybe nphet should have moved to a nationwide 3 earlier then it would have given us more time.
Rather than individual county restrictions, maybe we need to create blocks. Not province, but say if Dublin slips then apply restrictions to Louth, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow also. It should also depend on size of a county and where the cases are highest. No point dragging Kerry into restrictions if all of Corks cases are on the east of the county.
Blanket restrictions may work for dropping numbers nationwide but they aren't sustainable long term.

IMO the current approach isn't looking long term... They are holding out for a vaccine in the next 3-4 months. While that still seems like it might happen, they will stick with a short term mentality.

The interesting point comes if the vaccines don't... At that point they will really need to look at a "living with" plan like Asian countries have.

is_that_so

prunudo wrote: »

At the end of the day, I don't know what the answer is, but the current set up isn't working. And I know its all ifs, buts and maybes but maybe nphet should have moved to a nationwide 3 earlier then it would have given us more time.
Rather than individual county restrictions, maybe we need to create blocks. Not province, but say if Dublin slips then apply restrictions to Louth, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow also. It should also depend on size of a county and where the cases are highest. No point dragging Kerry into restrictions if all of Corks cases are on the east of the county.
Blanket restrictions may work for dropping numbers nationwide but they aren't sustainable long term.

Part of the answer is more tools, not more of the same. The assumption with that long term Level 3 is that we will not find more effective ways of managing it. We simply have to, otherwise it's all down to initial vaccines, with the risk that they may not do what we hope.

ninebeanrows

I am in need of getting my toe nail cuts, it is not an easy job and I usually get a family member to do them, I live alone.

Would I be allowed to visit my family for them to cut them or is this against the rules?

I am afraid if i leave it any longer my ingrown toenails will return which have caused a multitude of issues in recent years.

is_that_so

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

I am in need of getting my toe nail cuts, it is not an easy job and I usually get a family member to do them, I live alone.

Would I be allowed to visit my family for them to cut them or is this against the rules?

I am afraid if i leave it any longer my ingrown toenails will return which have caused a multitude of issues in recent years.

That sounds to me like care for the family, which is allowed.

khalessi

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

I am in need of getting my toe nail cuts, it is not an easy job and I usually get a family member to do them, I live alone.

Would I be allowed to visit my family for them to cut them or is this against the rules?

I am afraid if i leave it any longer my ingrown toenails will return which have caused a multitude of issues in recent years.

You are allowed form a social bubble with family member for contact and social, so I presume so.