Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

polesheep

polesheep wrote: »

When people have nothing to lose they are prepared to risk anything. Some people are getting to that point.

Sums it up.
But the people that haven’t lost anything will never get that. “Show resilience “ as one poster put it.

Graham

I don't think anyone doubts there are families struggling.

Relaxing the restrictions would give those families a temporary break, no doubt about it.

The fallout several weeks later would put them right back where they are now, with even more families joining them.

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

And they assert that the sooner this house of cards comes down the better for us all in the long run.

Yes, the financial Armageddon method of pandemic management.

Super idea.

We are nearly there.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

the economy collapsing would at least force us to open business again and some people can go back to work.

That seems legit.

CalamariFritti

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, the financial Armageddon method of pandemic management.

Super idea.

We are nearly there.

Well people are rightly worried this may be the only thing that may make our leaders 're-assess'.

Because we are really in two camps here.

Camp A says we have seen lockdown 'working'. Numbers have come down from lockdowns. Therefore lockdowns save lives. Trying something else is like playing god.

But there is no proof that 'something else' may be worse. In fact we have seen other countries not really being worse off without lockdowns.

The problem with 'something else' is simply that its something else. Its risk aversion. If we tried something else and people died there too (as they always will) the blame for that will be put at our feet. So we better not try anything else. After all people have been conditioned for lockdown now and they accept it. Who knows whether it really saves lives but this is the way.

Camp B says here we lockdown the country to everyone's detriment and the vulnerable groups keep dying anyway. How many times do we want to do this before a rethink?

FintanMcluskey

Mike Murdock wrote: »

More likely a number of them want their 2 day a week pub gargle fix, weekly trips to restaurants, and 4 city breaks + 1 major holiday a year.

A significant number of people work hard to afford that stuff.

It’s a motivation to educate oneself and achieve as much as possible.

The mask is slipping though, jealousy of successful people has became very apparent throughout this crisis

McConkey waxing lyrical with Claire Byrne this morning. "So the AZ vaccine has proven ineffective against the SA variant, although this variant might not be widespread in Ireland. We might not have any need to worry." From the same bloke who said there will be tens of thousands of deaths in the Dublin area by last October. RTÉ lean on these bluffers who cannot offer anything substantive. And you wonder why public confidence in so-called "experts" is diminishing.

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

But there is no proof that 'something else' may be worse. In fact we have seen other countries not really being worse off without lockdowns.

Depends on how you define "lockdowns" it also depends how you define "worse off".

Maybe elaborate?

I'm guessing I'm going to get belted with Sweden.

At this stage it's clear, especially compared to their neighbors, their economy is in bits and lots of people are sick and dead.

The costs have been massive with very little value.

Whatsisname

Mike Murdock wrote: »

More likely a number of them want their 2 day a week pub gargle fix, weekly trips to restaurants, and 4 city breaks + 1 major holiday a year.

How dare people be allowed do anything other than their weekly shop.

facehugger99

Mike Murdock wrote: »

More likely a number of them want their 2 day a week pub gargle fix, weekly trips to restaurants, and 4 city breaks + 1 major holiday a year.

The begrudgery is strong in this one.

Don't Chute!

Mike Murdock wrote: »

More likely a number of them want their 2 day a week pub gargle fix, weekly trips to restaurants, and 4 city breaks + 1 major holiday a year.

What you mean living their lives? How dare they the absolute animals.

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

McConkey waxing lyrical with Claire Byrne this morning. "So the AZ vaccine has proven ineffective against the SA variant, although this variant might not be widespread in Ireland. We might not have any need to worry." From the same bloke who said there will be tens of thousands of deaths in the Dublin area by last October. RTÉ lean on these bluffers who cannot offer anything substantive. And you wonder why public confidence in so-called "experts" is diminishing.

I love when scientist use might. It is such a nice word when they want to make a statement without actually committing to what they say. Statements like that are worth about the same as waffle.

CalamariFritti

Boggles wrote: »

Depends on how you define "lockdowns" it also depends how you define "worse off".

Maybe elaborate?

I'm guessing I'm going to get belted with Sweden.

At this stage it's clear, especially compared to their neighbors, their economy is in bits and lots of people are sick and dead.

The costs have been massive with very little value.

As opposed to here where everybody is happy, economy is rocking and nobody gets sick and dies with covid?

Nobody is saying Sweden is the gold standard. They lost lives and quality of life too.

What people are saying is that Sweden have done well enough to debunk the argument that lockdowns are the only show in town. Sweden have done no worse than us and in fact head over to worldometer and have look at Sweden; numbers plummeting just like here.

Sweden is not the gold standard. Sweden is just an inconvenient truth.

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

As opposed to here where everybody is happy, economy is rocking and nobody gets sick and dies with covid?

Nobody is saying Sweden is the gold standard. They lost lives and quality of life too.

What people are saying is that Sweden have done well enough to debunk the argument that lockdowns are the only show in town. Sweden have done no worse than us and in fact head over to worldometer and have look at Sweden; numbers plummeting just like here.

Sweden is not the gold standard. Sweden is just an inconvenient truth.

Nope. They have just killed a lot of people and tanked their economy anyway.

That said they have come in to line with restrictions finally as opinion polls turned.

CalamariFritti

walus wrote: »

I love when scientist use might. It is such a nice word when they want to make a statement without actually committing to what they say. Statements like that are worth about the same as waffle.

Scientists say 'may' and 'can' when they know what they're saying will not hold up to scientific scrutiny and they dont want to get pulled up on it some time in the future. They're get out clauses. Very popular words in all those mask 'studies' and conveniently overlooked.

SheepsClothing

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

A significant number of people work hard to afford that stuff.

It’s a motivation to educate oneself and achieve as much as possible.

The mask is slipping though, jealousy of successful people has became very apparent throughout this crisis

So we've now reached the point in this thread where people in favor of restrictions to contain the virus are:

- all on full pay working from home
- don't care about people who have lost jobs
- jealous of big achievers with their multiple holidays

I know you like talking about slipping masks and bitter curtain twitching begrudgers, but I feel their may be some projection at play here.

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Very popular words in all those mask 'studies' and conveniently overlooked.

No restrictions, no masks, no vaccines, no high speed broadband.

Full house!

CalamariFritti

Kunta Kinte

Windmill100000 wrote: »

...and those for restrictions are called the doom mongers. Oh the irony. It would be laughable if it wasn't so nasty.

Absollutely. The masks have slipped big time quite literally in their cases.

Mike Murdock

SheepsClothing wrote: »

So we've now reached the point in this thread where people in favor of restrictions to contain the virus are:

- all on full pay working from home
- don't care about people who have lost jobs
- jealous of big achievers with their multiple holidays

I know you like talking about slipping masks and bitter curtain twitching begrudgers, but I feel their may be some projection at play here.

Lots of projection.

CalamariFritti

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. They have just killed a lot of people and tanked their economy anyway.

That said they have come in to line with restrictions finally as opinion polls turned.

They are some really worrying truths in your statement backed up by a misleading graph.

First of all the misleading graph.

Sweden have not enacted on stricter measures. They have brought legislation into place that allows them to do so. But they havent actually done so yet. So unless the virus understands law that graphic is nonsense.

Secondly you made an involuntary slip here. You're basically admitting that the discourse is driven by public opinion. Instead of scientific rationale. And that it is about being 'in line'.

And of course it is. Like I said before. Sweden debunks our approach is 'without alternative'. Sweden is an inconvenient truth.

Graham

SheepsClothing wrote: »

So we've now reached the point in this thread where people in favor of restrictions to contain the virus are:

aware of the consequences of lifting the restrictions.

Kunta Kinte

PTH2009 wrote: »

More sad and angry about the no mass gatherings and events

And you can`t understand why ?

Whatsisname

Came across an interesting post on reddit last night that highlighted the UK's 2011 strategy of dealing with a pandemic.

It's a bit lengthy but worth the read.

TL:DR The exact opposite of the UK's 2011 pandemic strategy was done.

–––––––––––

The UK's Department of Health published guidance in 2011 for mitigating an influenza pandemic - full document here. This guidance covers any influenza pandemic up to the highest severity, with a symptomatic fatality rate of 2.5%:

For deaths, the analysis of previous influenza pandemics suggests that we should plan for a situation in which up to 2.5% of those with symptoms would die as a result of influenza, assuming no effective treatment was available.

COVID19 is still significantly less severe than the worst case scenario pandemic discussed in this paper. The document also states that the guidance can be adapted to other respiratory pathogens such as SARS:

A pandemic is most likely to be caused by a new subtype of the Influenza A virus but the plans could be adapted and deployed for scenarios such as an outbreak of another infectious disease, eg Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in health care settings, with an altogether different pattern of infectivity.

Facemasks and respirators

Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting. Facemasks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good respiratory, hand, and home hygiene behaviour in order for them to achieve the intended benefit. Research also shows that compliance with these recommended behaviours when wearing facemasks for prolonged periods reduces over time.

Border Closures

There are no plans to attempt to close borders in the event of an influenza pandemic. The UK generally has a high level of international connectivity, and so is likely to be one of the earlier countries to receive infectious individuals. Modelling suggests that imposing a 90% restriction on all air travel to the UK at the point a pandemic emerges would only delay the peak of a pandemic wave by one to two weeks10,11. Even a 99.9% travel restriction might delay a pandemic wave by only two months. During 2009 it became clear that the pandemic virus had already spread widely before international authorities were alerted, suggesting that in any case the point of pandemic emergence had been missed by several weeks. The economic, political and social consequences of border closures would also be very substantial, including risks to the secure supply of food, pharmaceuticals and other supplies.

Public gatherings

There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission14. Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare.

For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Business as Usual

During a pandemic, the Government will encourage those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives for as long and as far as that is possible, whilst taking basic precautions to protect themselves from infection and lessen the risk of spreading influenza to others (see Chapter 4). The UK Government does not plan to close borders, stop mass gatherings or impose controls on public transport during any pandemic.

School closures are considered in this documentation (working also on the assumption that a influenza virus would be dangerous for children, which COVID19 of course is not), but with the specific caveat that:

Once the virus is more established in the country, the general policy would be that schools should not close – unless there are specific local business continuity reasons (staff shortages or particularly vulnerable children). This policy will be reviewed in light of information about how the pandemic is unfolding at the time.

The impact of closure of schools and similar settings on all sectors would have substantial economic and social consequences, and have a disproportionately large effect on health and social care because of the demographic profile of those employed in these sectors. Such a step would therefore only be taken in an influenza pandemic with a very high impact and so, although school closures cannot be ruled out, it should not be the primary focus of schools’ planning.

SnuggyBear

Mike Murdock wrote: »

More likely a number of them want their 2 day a week pub gargle fix, weekly trips to restaurants, and 4 city breaks + 1 major holiday a year.

Enjoy life you mean?

polesheep

walus wrote: »

I love when scientist use might. It is such a nice word when they want to make a statement without actually committing to what they say. Statements like that are worth about the same as waffle.

Good scientists follow this with "But we don't know yet."

Boggles

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Secondly you made an involuntary slip here. You're basically admitting that the discourse is driven by public opinion. Instead of scientific rationale. And that it is about being 'in line'.

I assure you everything I say is voluntary.

The Swedish got fed up of seeing 1000s dying and 1000s ending up in ICU and the opinion changed.

Which led to law change and tougher restrictions.

Sweden's parliament has passed a temporary pandemic law that allows the government to place legally-binding restrictions on many businesses and public places, up to and including closure. The law comes into force on January 10.

Just hours after the law was passed, the government announced new measures made possible by the law. Some indoor venues including shops and gyms will have strict capacity limitations imposed, while private events at venues outside the home will be capped at 8 people.

Listen I think what Sweden has achieved is remarkable, but even they are admitting they went the wrong route, the net result is a tanked economy, 12,000+ dead and 4+ times more people in ICU then we had. Compared to their neighbors, they look like a complete and utter basket case.

That will leave a massive scar on a country that values society as a whole.

But one thing is for sure, they ain't anything to be held up as a template for pandemic management.

Kunta Kinte

SnuggyBear wrote: »

Enjoy life you mean?

In the middle of a global pandemic? Fail.

Dempo1

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Another post of horse****

Charming with 2 likes, have I been proven wrong? I think not

walus

Boggles wrote: »

Nope. They have just killed a lot of people and tanked their economy anyway.

That said they have come in to line with restrictions finally as opinion polls turned.
...

How did the Swedes 'tanked' their economy? What factors did you base that statement on?