Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

MOR316

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

This actually made me laugh. Kudos.

I’m so frustrated. I don’t want to go to a restaurant. I’ll keep supporting them with takeaway. I just want to be able to have one or two people to my house for a cup of coffee somewhere that is peaceful and it isn’t fecking raining

Totally get you and much respect for following the guidelines.

However, it's your personal choice/decision. If you trust the person you'd like over then I see no reason myself.

I've had one person inside my house since March. I trusted him, he didn't have it and wasn't around anyone. Same with me so, it's your call.

FinglasFollain

Goldengirl wrote: »

Cases rise. Deaths rose too . Hospitals coped because level 3 plus then level 5 introduced .
Where have you been that you don't know this or is your head just permanently stuck....in the sand ?

Many in government believe that Level 3 plus household restrictions are responsible for bringing the numbers down. Are their heads stuck in the sand too?

growleaves

eagle eye wrote: »

This is late November, it's not the most social time of the year. You could argue that two weeks before Christmas is where it begins but for me it's the couple of days before and the week and a bit after that are the most social time of the year.
I'd like us not to be in lockdown then. There's every chance that ending this lockdown now means we are in bad shape at Christmas. If we waited until two weeks before Christmas we would be alright until the New Year.
I'd like a good time at Christmas with no worries about high numbers and the potential of hospitals being overrun.
Do you not think that should be our target?

You want to finish two weeks later.

If someone says they want a six-week lockdown and later they're trying to drag it to eight weeks or ten weeks then people will resist going into the next lockdown because they know the time limits are meaningless or at least very elastic.

In spite of what people say there's guarantee of getting to a magic number (100?), and no way of knowing quite how it happened if it does happen (just endless competing theories of causality proposed and counter-posed).

eagle eye

growleaves wrote:

If someone says they want a six-week lockdown and later they're trying to drag it to eight weeks or ten weeks then people will resist going into the next lockdown because they know the time limits are meaningless or at least very elastic.

Irish people resist nothing. We didn't resist paying for all the banks in Europe did we? Four years of hell we put up with for that. This is minor stuff in comparison.

Plumbthedepths

eagle eye wrote: »

This is late November, it's not the most social time of the year. You could argue that two weeks before Christmas is where it begins but for me it's the couple of days before and the week and a bit after that are the most social time of the year.
I'd like us not to be in lockdown then. There's every chance that ending this lockdown now means we are in bad shape at Christmas. If we waited until two weeks before Christmas we would be alright until the New Year.
I'd like a good time at Christmas with no worries about high numbers and the potential of hospitals being overrun.
Do you not think that should be our target?

My only thoughts on your comment are by stalling you are creating even more pent up demand and is imho beyond stupid and creates the exact situation you fear.

eagle eye

Plumbthedepths wrote:

My only thoughts on your comment are by stalling you are creating even more pent up demand and is imho beyond stupid and creates the exact situation you fear.

That only happens if the reopening is badly managed.

ixoy

Arghus wrote: »

I think it's absolutely crazy to move out from level 5 before we've at least got to a stage of between 50-100 cases and what we are doing now is sowing the seeds for more disruption, another harsh lockdown and further closures once again.

Do you think retail is going to make that much of a difference? That's what's at Level 3. Restaurants being open indoors, as we will now have it appears, aren't Level 3. Do you think even Level 3 isn't okay?

The household bits of the restrictions will be ignored either way over Christmas and people will just make their own judgement calls.

Plumbthedepths

eagle eye wrote: »

That only happens if the reopening is badly managed.

If the government were to follow what you purpose it would be a disaster.
We won't agree so best to leave it at that.

eagle eye

Plumbthedepths wrote:

If the government were to follow what you purpose it would be a disaster. We won't agree so best to leave it at that.

Explain why.

growleaves

eagle eye wrote: »

Irish people resist nothing. We didn't resist paying for all the banks in Europe did we? Four years of hell we put up with for that. This is minor stuff in comparison.

Not formally no.

But informally lockdown is becoming something people dodge and try to get around.

Fear of covid itself is def on the wane among under-80s.

Goldengirl

FinglasFollain wrote: »

Many in government believe that Level 3 plus household restrictions are responsible for bringing the numbers down. Are their heads stuck in the sand too?

Those would be the people in government who didn't think a lockdown was necessary .
Until case numbers went over 1000..

So yes like some others here ,stuck somewhere .

MOR316

See, this is what I'm not understanding...

https://twitter.com/Independent_ie/status/1332119453568540672

I have had so many invites to parties happening at Christmas time. I've had people trying to get me to have sessions in my house.
All of this before there was even a mention of pubs/restaurants opening.

Basically, it makes no difference whether the pubs are open or closed, people are still going to have house gatherings so, I'm not sure what he's on about here

eagle eye

MOR316 wrote:

Basically, it makes no difference whether the pubs are open or closed, people are still going to have house gatherings so, I'm not sure what he's on about here

Well I often ended up at a party after the pub closed that wasn't even organised until near closing time.

Arghus

ixoy wrote: »

Do you think retail is going to make that much of a difference? That's what's at Level 3. Restaurants being open indoors, as we will now have it appears, aren't Level 3. Do you think even Level 3 isn't okay?

The household bits of the restrictions will be ignored either way over Christmas and people will just make their own judgement calls.

I think if the numbers were lower I'd feel better about it. But we have to take a few things into account - one, the virus is still circulating in numbers that can very quickly get out of hand again. There's also going to be a lot of demand and a lot of footfall into retail given the month that's in it. Now people might be controlling numbers in individual stores etc, etc but crowded shopping areas are still going to be thronged, indoor shopping centres will still be thronged - people will meet up with friends and groups.

I think if we didn't have the twin problem of case numbers just teetering on the edge of spiraling upwards and a load of pent up consumer demand that will inevitably bring people together into crowded areas, then I'd feel a lot better about it. I think retail being open - as it is - will, indirectly, contribute to numbers rising again.

Now, I amn't saying that it's as bad as pubs or restaurants or golf dinners or what have you. And I know the prospect of retailers having to close for these weeks is never really going to happen, but I think if it wasn't December it wouldn't be considered until the case numbers were lower.

If the numbers were lower and we didn't have the prospect of the December crowds I'd feel more confident that it won't backfire. Even if the numbers were lower and it was still December I'd feel more confident - but as it stands we have a bad mix of both of those things happening at the same time and while I don't think retail is as potentially disastrous as other sectors of the economy to open up, it's still potentially problematic.

MOR316

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I often ended up at a party after the pub closed that wasn't even organised until near closing time.

That's not the point I was making. We all know that can happen.

I'm saying that Leo's point is meaningless. Parties, gatherings, whatever anyone wishes to call them, have been planned, are being planned and no doubt will be planned, regardless of whether the pubs are open or not.

I was invited to one for Christmas week, back in October ffs
I have people getting on to me about opening up my living room...

Actually, scratch that, Leo had an indoor gathering in Phoenix Park when pubs were closed in May

Hulk Hands

Arghus wrote: »

I think it's absolutely crazy to move out from level 5 before we've at least got to a stage of between 50-100 cases and what we are doing now is sowing the seeds for more disruption, another harsh lockdown and further closures once again. I know, I know - Christmas etc: but we all have to still get on with life beyond Christmas. We're going to be giving ourselves a taste of freedom - but it's not sustainable, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

You say that people's argument isn't "stay in lockdown now to avoid another lockdown in the future" yet proceed to make that exact argument.

'50-100 cases a day'. After months of telling us to listen to the experts, have you suddenly some crystal ball to explain how 50-100 cases is the right amount to open up? All the while we've the third lowest incidence rate currently in the entirety of Europe and have had the harshest lockdown conditions in Europe since May on the whole.

Goldengirl

Arghus wrote: »

I think if the numbers were lower I'd feel better about it. But we have to take a few things into account - one, the virus is still circulating in numbers that can very quickly get out of hand again. There's also going to be a lot of demand and a lot of footfall into retail given the month that's in it. Now people might be controlling numbers in individual stores etc, etc but crowded shopping areas are still going to be thronged, indoor shopping centres will still be thronged - people will meet up with friends and groups.

I think if we didn't have the twin problem of case numbers just teetering on the edge of spiraling upwards and a load of pent up consumer demand that will inevitably bring people together into crowded areas, then I'd feel a lot better about it. I think retail being open - as it is - will, indirectly, contribute to numbers rising again.

Now, I amn't saying that it's as bad as pubs or restaurants or golf dinners or what have you. And I know the prospect of retailers having to close for these weeks is never really going to happen, but I think if it wasn't December it wouldn't be considered until the case numbers were lower.

If the numbers were lower and we didn't have the prospect of the December crowds I'd feel more confident that it won't backfire. Even if the numbers were lower and it was still December I'd feel more confident - but as it stands we have a bad mix of both of those things happening at the same time and while I don't think retail is as potentially disastrous as other sectors of the economy to open up, it's still potentially problematic.

Yes ,Arghus ,this is what I was thinking too.
If it wasn't Christmas everything could be a little more controlled .

So if this goes ahead here is how I see it playing out ...

Retail opening , great, we are all looking forward to that !
It will be difficult to control crowds.
Ŕ0 will creep up a little .

Restaurants and gastropubs opening.
Again, can't wait to get out for a meal and a pint .
All good to start with , but inevitably more mixing and with a few drinks less care .
Cases starting to rise again .

Two weeks later , pressure rising before Christmas with shopping , people gathering for pub to pub nights out .
People travelling for shopping and nights away .
Community transmission rising .
Cases doubling every 10 days to fortnight .

Christmas time , numbers high again and climbing .
People having family and friends over .
Flu as well as Covid cases now .
Hospitals under pressure but government have no appetite to shut down again and risk being labelled The Grinch .

After Christmas and the hospitals are having outbreaks of infection.
Pressure on health services due to increased cases , lack of staff because of illness or contact with Covid .

Everyone blaming everyone else , because it was obvious that this would happen so whose fault is it ?

What would I like to see ?
Not a continued lockdown, but 2 weekly increments between each opening
ie. open safely retail, gyms and hairdressers , enforce restrictions strictly . See if numbers stable , if so then open restaurants and gastro bars mid December , enforce strictly , check numbers , if ok then allow groups to visit Christmas week and up to New Year , and so on.

It would be great if it all worked out ( hey we all need a break at this stage ) but we will be heading to a disastrous Christmas if we don't open in a more controlled manner .

And before I am slated for being a panic merchant or doom monger , I have predicted correctly what has happened in September/ October , and have skin in the game , as it were .

Hulk Hands

It's amazing what a day and a few leaks does. We should be here debating how regular pubs are being completely screwed and livelihoods ruined, because of an impression that restaurants can far better manage risk than similar establishments that don't serve food.

Instead we have people defending why restaurants in a country with exceptionally low case numbers should open up to customers for 90 minutes periods

Arghus

Hulk Hands wrote: »

You say that people's argument isn't "stay in lockdown now to avoid another lockdown in the future" yet proceed to make that exact argument.

'50-100 cases a day'. After months of telling us to listen to the experts, have you suddenly some crystal ball to explain how 50-100 cases is the right amount to open up? All the while we've the third lowest incidence rate currently in the entirety of Europe and have had the harshest lockdown conditions in Europe since May on the whole.

Fair enough.
I guess my argument could be summed up "as stay in lockdown now(for a period)to avoid another lockdown in the future" - I guess I was arguing that people suggesting that the argument was the ludicrous stay in lockdown indefinitely to avoid a further lockdown, a deliberate misinterpretation that some people appeared to be making. Maybe you can't see the difference.

I think between 50-100 cases a day is a reasonable figure to sustain if you apply a level three level of restrictions. This is the figure Professor Philip Nolan, the Head of epidemiological modelling in NPHET - has repeatedly suggested is a sustainable target. I'd consider him an expert to be honest. Could it be higher? Could it be lower? Perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me. I don't think 300+ is. You are giving yourself a lot less slack.

Yeah, we're doing well compared to Europe and we've had a much harsher lockdown than most since the Summer. Do you think there might be a Connection? That's an argument to keep up the good work in my book - are you arguing in favour of maintaining harsher restrictions so we can maintain our advantage?

growleaves

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It's amazing what a day and a few leaks does. We should be here debating how regular pubs are being completely screwed and livelihoods ruined, because of an impression that restaurants can far better manage risk than similar establishments that don't serve food.

Instead we have people defending why restaurants in a country with exceptionally low case numbers should open up to customers for 90 minutes periods

As long as people are burning incense at the altar of R and trying to justify everything in terms of case numbers they'll never get from under all this muck.

Do people have a right to work or don't they? If they do then hospital administration via rigid control of the population should not be the supreme principle on which everything is based.

jelem

Arghus wrote: »

Fair enough.
I guess my argument could be summed up "as stay in lockdown now(for a period)to avoid another lockdown in the future" - I guess I was arguing that people suggesting that the argument was the ludicrous stay in lockdown indefinitely to avoid a further lockdown, a deliberate misinterpretation that some people appeared to be making. Maybe you can't see the difference.

I think between 50-100 cases a day is a reasonable figure to sustain if you apply a level three level of restrictions. This is the figure Professor Philip Nolan, the Head of epidemiological modelling in NPHET - has repeatedly suggested is a sustainable target. I'd consider him an expert to be honest. Could it be higher? Could it be lower? Perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me. I don't think 300+ is. You are giving yourself a lot less slack.

Yeah, we're doing well compared to Europe and we've had a much harsher lockdown than most since the Summer. Do you think there might be a Connection? That's an argument to keep up the good work in my book - are you arguing in favour of maintaining harsher restrictions so we can maintain our advantage?

where do the figures come from and actually audited as i see on RTE,
approx 3% tested positive.
the uk with lesser restrictions at differing times show figures 26nov. as 1 in 85 (you do math %).
so thats nowhere near our 5 weeks lockdown.
covid is like the rampant common cold and all are giving dubious figures and restricting citizens.
You will get it and live or die no matter what the politicians and alleged experts claim and use to
restrict the citizens movement and behaviour.
even the vaccine is an issue as the words on cost and if any use is dubious which shows
leaning to mass profit with government free "get out of jail card" for the profiteers.
of all the prices ive heard the russians have stated their vaccine (which has been place on application
ahead of most with WHO) will cost approx 20 dollars.
There is too much being made of covid by alleged experts and politicians seeking limelight.
yes you may die but it is your choice and life should not grind to a halt whilst failing to
protect the vulnerable as in nursing homes.

growleaves

brokekeyboard wrote: »

The right to work is superceded by the right to live in this case.

I am thankful that principle was applied when we can see what happened where it was not.

No not by the right to live. The right to be offered theoretical protection from the spread of a mild disease.

I am thankful that false gods like R will one day be rejected and consigned to a history book as a sad chapter in humanity's folly.

John O.Groats

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It's amazing what a day and a few leaks does. We should be here debating how regular pubs are being completely screwed and livelihoods ruined, because of an impression that restaurants can far better manage risk than similar establishments that don't serve food.

Instead we have people defending why restaurants in a country with exceptionally low case numbers should open up to customers for 90 minutes periods

How do you make out they are exceptionally low case numbers? They are not anything of the kind.

wes

growleaves wrote: »

Well you're assuming that the numbers can be controlled to a *very precise degree* by crude, broad-based political actions - that are so contrary to human nature as to be next to impossible.

That they came down after an April peak to single digits doesn't prove that you can legislate for infectious microbes. That may just happen every summer, ie seasonality.

So any unknown variables, so many base assumptions any one of which may be wrong.

Yet we have seen numbers go up when advice is ignored. We know what situations are more risky, and we know that we need to get numbers down, so those situations that have more risk can be allowed.

shinzon

We're going to be in a mess in January February last time NPHET advice was ignored that's exactly what happened shame tbh


Shin

Wanderer78

shinzon wrote:

We're going to be in a mess in January February last time NPHET advice was ignored that's exactly what happened shame tbh

Again, the economies needs far outweigh our own needs

eagle eye

Wanderer78 wrote:

Again, the economies needs far outweigh our own needs

If you are going to make that claim let's hear a detailed explanation.
Also do you want to hop in a car and go around the country and pick out who dies? Because you and all those who don't care about covid running wild are going to be responsible for many deaths.

CruelSummer

shinzon wrote: »

We're going to be in a mess in January February last time NPHET advice was ignored that's exactly what happened shame tbh


Shin

I disagree. The 2nd wave was already coming under control with Level 3 plus previously. We cost ourselves an extra 1.5 billion for a Level 5 that cost many people their mental well-being, livelihoods, and certain screening services which were halted. The price is too high to justify level 5, and the death rate is down 90% on the first wave.
Meanwhile nursing homes & hospitals continue to fail to control outbreaks of the most vulnerable. Where are their repeated testing strategies of their staff? I think a journalist should investigate and interview them, it’s shocking what is actually happening.

paddyisreal

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are going to make that claim let's hear a detailed explanation.
Also do you want to hop in a car and go around the country and pick out who dies? Because you and all those who don't care about covid running wild are going to be responsible for many deaths.

How many deaths, the date rate is not even 1 percent. The nunber of ico admissions is also way longer than it was initially. The treatments are way better than it was at the start so the scaremongering really should stop

MerlinSouthDub

CruelSummer wrote: »

I disagree. The 2nd wave was already coming under control with Level 3 plus previously. We cost ourselves and extra 1.5 billion for a Level 5 that cost many people their mental well-being, livelihoods, and certain screening services which were halted. The price is too high to justify level 5, and the death rate is down 90% on the first wave.
Meanwhile nursing homes & hospitals continue to fail to control outbreaks of the most vulnerable. Where are their repeated testing strategies of their staff? I think a journalist should investigate and interview them, it’s shocking what is actually happening.

Absolutely. It's pretty clear level 5 had no impact on the reproductive rate. Level 3 plus did all the work. That's what the data tells us. A shocking error by NPHET which has done a huge amount of unnecessary damage. And, not for the first time in his career, no admission of a mistake or an apology from Dr Tony.