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

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool.

So do you have that source on outdoor spread being a significant problem?

Perhaps it wasnt clear to you. People that don't socially distance can spread the virus whether indoors or out.

Absolutely there is less risk if people are outdoors. We all know that. The assumption being they all stay apart while outdoors. Is that going to happen though? Unlikely.

TonyMaloney

Deleted User wrote: »

Cool.

So do you have that source on outdoor spread being a significant problem?

You're forgetting a rather famous one

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Cool.

So do you have that source on outdoor spread being a significant problem?

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/223/4/550/6009483?login=true

This would seem to suggest it can be a problem.

Stormyteacup

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool.

So do you have that source on outdoor spread being a significant problem?

There is none. And this nonsense of ‘stopping people moving about’ in relation to travel limits and click and collect, and reopening of outdoor sports is outdated and long scientifically obsolete.

Possibly it made sense when catching Covid from a petrol pump, door handle or park bench was a prevailing theory.

Indoor congregations transmit the virus.

With that in mind how much could we open with distancing, masking and basic sanitation measures in place if necessary?

For now, hammer home the risk of indoor congregations - encourage outdoor activities and convey future hope as vaccination programme rolled out.

Maybe Claire Byrne could have a segment about how to have a picnic?

ArthurDayne

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I was replying to a comment about businesses defying restrictions.

I agree as more people are vaccinated people will be meeting up more. If cases do rise though in the meantime we won't be relaxing much in the way of restrictions. It's certainly been the case since Christmas and I dont see that position changing. People can come on here and say they are meeting x,y, z amount of people. Work away, I say, but if lockdown is extended as a result of rising numbers they had better be prepared to live with the consequences of a further extended lockdown till numbers drop.

But I guess that case numbers have been accepted as a justification for lockdown on the premise that in the pre-vaccine world a rise in case numbers meant potential collapse of critical care and mass deaths along with it. In a world where you have the age group that accounts for over 80% of Covid hospitalisations, ICU admissions and of course deaths largely vaccinated — then suddenly the moral / ethical justification by which the country “accepted” lockdown is shattered.

Even the political establishment at that point is surely going to start thinking about their post-pandemic careers. Micheal Martin, Stephen Donnelly etc in my own humble opinion now face a risk that they have become the faces of bad news and misery. I have to admit, I’m sick of the sight of them — fairly or unfairly — because sometimes it’s just like staring into a black hole of helpless passivity at best and hopelessness at worst. If they’re introducing lockdowns and shutting down businesses when case numbers go up, and the effect of the vaccines is that hospitalisations and deaths are not skyrocketing, they are going to be mauled. A smart politician right now will be biding their time and starting to ramp up the re-open rhetoric over the next month or two — to become the faces and voices of the future and hope.

So yeah, I get your point that people not complying as much will lead to a rise in cases (it’s inevitable) and it is of course a statement of fact that case numbers have been the foundation of lockdown decisions up to now. But once the consequence of a rise in cases has shifted from a potential all out collapse of the healthcare system to merely meaning that a whole bunch of younger fitter people are going to have the sniffles (and the system having capacity to address the statistically very small number of that cohort who would require hospital care), then using case numbers as justification for yet another lockdown is going to be a hard one to sell.

daydorunrun

CMO in the UK seems to have a better understanding (at least publicly) than ours-


A year on from when Prime Minister Boris Johnson first told the public to "stay at home", Prof Whitty said the government knew "right from the beginning the lockdown was going to have really severe effects on many people's health".

He noted how people may have been exercising less or drinking more over the past 12 months, while there had also been an increase in levels of domestic abuse and loneliness.


"For some people lockdown has either made no difference or in some cases - if you actually look at the academic literature and surveys - has even improved life, interestingly," he said.

"But for many people, physical or mental wellbeing have been very badly affected by this.

"Ranging from increased levels of domestic abuse, loneliness - particularly in older people who felt very much isolated in their areas - physical health, people maybe exercising less, greater amounts of alcohol consumption."

Prof Whitty added a long-term problem from lockdown would also be people having missed health screenings or attended doctor appointments later than they would otherwise have done.

"This may well have a significant effect on cancers being detected later," he said.


I think the bolded bit is often forgotten here- this has effected everyone differently, some are struggling while others are quite the opposite. You can almost tell from the tone of posters to this forum which category they belong,

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

There is none. And this nonsense of ‘stopping people moving about’ in relation to travel limits and click and collect, and reopening of outdoor sports is outdated and long scientifically obsolete.

You've discovered a variant of the virus that can teleport itself around the country?

copeyhagen

LameBeaver wrote: »

Zero chance of that happening. You will be cutting your own hair for a long time to come, legally anyway.

just done it now, turned out pretty well. 4th time i think.

the kelt

TonyMaloney wrote: »

No, that's not my view at all. It's miles away.

I think NPHET, mindful of our crappy hospital capacity, are being very cautious. Perhaps a little too cautious.

For instance there's clearly a lot of people meeting up outside. I've broken that restriction twice in the last month, once meeting the folks in a park, and another having a few cans with a couple of old friends.
Now perhaps I'm projecting as I've broken that rule, but I think NPHET should probably accept that it's happening, and allow it so that they can put some shape on it - numbers of people, locations etc etc

I'd also like to see local restrictions brought in, but on a province rather than county level.

As for reopening, well I think we should be looking to Israel, the UAE, the UK and the US for cues on that.
I don't see us waiting until 80% of the adult population is vaccinated, never mind the entire population, before significant but gradual reopening of sectors happens.

Nobody can guarantee you that a strain won't come along to **** everything up, but that's what the travel restrictions and the mandatory quarantine are in place for.

As to your final claim that 99% of people will be unaffected by covid, well to date it's put almost 6% of all Irish cases in hospital, and the UK's ONS has 10% of all cases suffering with long covid.

The only way a province level restriction can be brought in is if Dublin is treated as 1 province on its own.

Why should Carlow remain in lockdown for example because he Dublin numbers are still high

batman_oh

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

Honestly..where do you get this from? You have no reason, belief or evidence to say we won't be in level 2 until mid to late July.

Considering we won't be in level 4 until May its not exactly a huge stretch is it? Level 4 for 4 weeks pushes us into June. Level 3 for 4 weeks into July and they have been doing things in 6 week stretches lately

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cool.

So do you have that source on outdoor spread being a significant problem?

No Its not a war of attrition between indoors and outdoor risk of infection. The fact that experts in many countries have identified people mixing outdoors as an issue is notable with restrictions being brought in as a result.

From what I've read one of the main issue are the risks of infection with people mixing or meeting up in groups or crowds outdoors which is what many here seem to be advocating.

While some people may be ignoring the restrictions and meeting up with relatively small numbers (due to physical constraints such as the size of the average house etc) in their house - the lack of such constraints are a much bigger issue outside.

More people mixing means an increased risk of such encounters between people.

What we do know is that this virus spreads through aerosols exchanged during close (< 1 m) conversational contact – but also from cough sneezing etc over bigger distances.

Several studies have now shown the presence of virus in exhaled breath, as well as the production of more aerosols that may be carrying viruses even whilst talking

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1283/5898624

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850220301786?via%3Dihub%20

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382806/

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11875

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

You've discovered a variant of the virus that can teleport itself around the country?

Do you really think the virus is travelling around the country by spreading through outdoor contact? Our own media and government are travelling and meeting indoors. Essential workers are travelling and meeting indoors or working in large indoor facilities.

Unless you close every indoor facility including hospitals and residential homes, food and pharmaceutical factories, you will have spread of a highly transmissible virus through a small country.

Stormyteacup

gozunda wrote: »

No Its not a war of attrition between indoors and outdoor risk of infection. The fact that experts in many countries have identified people mixing outdoors as an issue is notable.

From what I've read one of the main issue are the risks of infection with people mixing or meeting up in groups or crowds outdoors which is what many here seem to be advocating.

While some people may be ignoring the restrictions and meeting up with relatively small numbers (due to physical constraints such as the size of the average house etc) in their house - the lack of such constraints are a much bigger issue outside.

More people mixing means an increased risk of such encounters between people.

What we do know is that this virus spreads through aerosols exchanged during close (< 1 m) conversational contact – but also from cough sneezing etc over bigger distances.

Several studies have now shown the presence of virus in exhaled breath, as well as the production of more aerosols that may be carrying viruses even whilst talking

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1283/5898624

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850220301786?via%3Dihub%20

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382806/

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11875

Hardly groundbreaking science. If you have a virus you expel it through breathing.

The question is how transmissible is that virus through outdoor contact. Everything points to it being minimal with a modicum if distancing and with keeping groups small.

Many small gatherings indoors would have been happier doing it outside if it had been sanctioned. All gatherings now must be behind closed doors or you’re in violation of guidelines.

Those having large indoor gatherings will continue to do so, because.... they will always be okay with bending rules and taking risks.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Do you really think the virus is travelling around the country by spreading through outdoor contact

That's not even close to what I posted

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Hardly groundbreaking science. If you have a virus you expel it through breathing.

The question is how transmissible is that virus through outdoor contact. Everything points to it being minimal with a modicum if distancing and with keeping groups small.

Many small gatherings indoors would have been happier doing it outside if it had been sanctioned. All gatherings now must be behind closed doors or you’re in violation of guidelines.

Those having large indoor gatherings will continue to do so, because.... they will always be okay with bending rules and taking risks.

It is actually. Up to fairly late last year the WHO were holding out that there was little evidence of P2P transmission for Covid and saying there was no need to wear masks because of that. We now know different.

And therein lies the problem. The size of outdoor gatherings or close mingling in similar situations can't be controlled in any practical way and the fact that people have a tenancy to act like lemmings in group situations. I can just imagine a group of friends meeting up for a few drinks in a park or similar keeping more than 1 metre apart . :rolleyes:

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

That's not even close to what I posted

Why is the virus more likely to transmit to someone 50km away from your house than it is within 5km of your house?

The transmission risks are the same - its a stupid rule that serves no purpose from a public health perspective.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Why is the virus more likely to transmit to someone 50km away from your house than it is within 5km of your house?

The transmission risks are the same - its a stupid rule that serves no purpose from a public health perspective.

No idea why people have such a hard time understanding this tbh - the 5km rule is little different from the stay at home order in the UK which is still in place there and elsewhere where only local travel is permitted.

Again these are measures to help prevent whole crowds of people from all over travelling distances to locations, mingling and all stopping for refreshments, toilets etc

As I said above people tend to act like lemmings at the best of times in these situations.

SAMTALK

timmyntc wrote: »

Why is the virus more likely to transmit to someone 50km away from your house than it is within 5km of your house?

The transmission risks are the same - its a stupid rule that serves no purpose from a public health perspective.

Because if you stay withing your 5km you won't be meeting the person who is 50km away !

It contains it within counties if travel is restricted therefore easier to identify source , contacts etc.

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

No idea wby people have such a hard time understanding this tbh - the 5km rule is little different from the stay at home order in the UK which is still in place there and elsewhere where only local travel is permitted.

Again these are measures to help prevent whole crowds of people from all over travelling distances to locations, mingling and all stopping for refreshments, toilets etc

As I said above people tend to act like lemmings at the best of times in these situations.

You are equally likely to transmit the virus within 5km as your are within 10km, 15km, 20km etc.

Infact in urban areas you are probably at higher risk due to overcrowding at the few amenities and parks within your 5km.

Stormyteacup

gozunda wrote: »

It is actually. Up to fairly late last year the WHO were holding out that there was little evidence of P2P transmission and saying there was no need to wear masks because of that. We now know different.

And therein lies the problem. The size of outdoor gatherings or close mingling can't be controlled in any practical way and the fact that people have a tenancy to act like lemmings in group situations. I can just imagine a group of friends meeting up for a few drinks in a park or similar keeping more than 1 metre apart . :rolleyes:

Ok I get that you can’t imagine it, but people are doing that anyway.

Why not be clear on how risk of transmission is greatly reduced with basic precautions outside in small gatherings and how much greater the risk is indoors?

The message is long overdue a change. As regards controlling it - same way they have used throughout their policing by consent campaign - your own community will monitor you and you’ll be moved on eventually if you’re acting in flagrant disregard of guidelines.

Those already complying in public will continue to comply in public and most responsible citizens given a choice between secret indoor meetings or lawful outdoor meetings will choose the latter.

Those irresponsible will continue to be so.

darconio

TonyMaloney wrote: »

My argument wasn't that hungary's vaccines are ****e. My argument is that we are not ready to open up based on simply having vaxed the most elderly cohorts, and I used the EU country that was furthest along with their program as evidence.
Your point that they only overtook us quite recently is a fair one, but doesn't alter mine.

The country that is furthest along with with their program in Europe is not Hungary though. It's Serbia. And they got stuck in to it all quite early. They are hopefully seeing a bit of a vaccine effect on the deaths, but it's not great. Their hospitals are in bad shape too, and they've been back under what appears to be a fairly wishy-washy lockdown since the start of the month.

A genuine question now, I am not trying to be a smartarse: can you add Sweden to those charts and then tell me your conclusions

retro:electro

namloc1980 wrote: »

What part of food and groceries being essential don't you get?

Lots of things that were deemed “non essential” for a short suspension of services are now, three months down the line, deemed essential. The seasons are changing and people need to dress accordingly. Yes there’s always online but not everyone is familiar with shopping online. There are also massive shipping delays. I’m waiting on two orders that I placed over two weeks ago, not a dicky bird out of them. If we are only allowed access to stuff for basic survival then why are the home-wear parts of Dunnes and Tesco still open? Why is B&Q still open? Why can I buy make up in Boots but it’s closed off and taped up in Tesco? It’s pure idiocy. At this stage people need hair cuts for basic hygiene and maintenance. The closing off of some sections on some stores while the remainder of the store stays open is just pure pageantry. Three months down the line I think it’s up to the public to decide what is essential to them

timmyntc

SAMTALK wrote: »

Because if you stay withing your 5km you won't be meeting the person who is 50km away !

It contains it within counties if travel is restricted therefore easier to identify source , contacts etc.

Contact tracing is done at a national level, so that point is moot.

If restrictions are to be based on county level numbers, then there would be some merit in county-wide restrictions on travel. But 5,10,20km limits have no merit. Totally nonsensical.

Only justification seems to be hypotheticals about people travelling and meeting people far away - nonsense

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Why is the virus more likely to transmit to someone 50km away from your house than it is within 5km of your house?

The transmission risks are the same - its a stupid rule that serves no purpose from a public health perspective.

Nobody said it was more likely, how did you conjure that little gem?

You're really going to pretend you don't see the logic for trying to keep the virus contained to smaller areas and reducing mobility to stop it spreading around?

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

Nobody said it was more likely, how did you conjure that little gem?

You're really going to pretend you don't see the logic for trying to keep the virus contained to smaller areas and reducing mobility to stop it spreading around?

If its not more likely to spread, then what difference does it make if a cluster of 20 cases is spread across a 5km radius, or a 50km radius? The outcome should be the same as its equally likely to spread in both cases.

There *is* no logic in keeping people contained given the chance to transmit is the same.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

You are equally likely to transmit the virus within 5km as your are within 10km, 15km, 20km etc.

Infact in urban areas you are probably at higher risk due to overcrowding at the few amenities and parks within your 5km.

You missed the main point - its the significant risk of people from all over the country all going to distant locations, mingling together, using shared facilities, queuing at supermacs or wherever.

The current restrictions help stop people from areas of high infection- spreading that infection to others from other areas.

Its really not that difficult to understand.

Interestingly Dublin has more public amenities per capita than elsewhere in the country. No reason for everyone to all go to the park etc only at the most popular times as seems to have been happening.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

If its not more likely to spread, then what difference does it make if a cluster of 20 cases is spread across a 5km radius, or a 50km radius? The outcome should be the same as its equally likely to spread in both cases.

There *is* no logic in keeping people contained given the chance to transmit is the same.

More people moving around = more virus spreads.

It's not rocket science.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

More people moving around = more virus spreads.

It's not rocket science.

No, this is redundant now. More congregations indoors = more virus spread.

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

You missed the main point - its the significant risk of people from all over the country all going to distant locations, mingling together, using shared facilities, queuing at supermacs or wherever.

The current restrictions help stop people from areas of high infection- spreading that infection to others.

Its really not that difficult to understand.

Interestingly Dublin has more public amenities per capita than elsewhere in the country. No reason for everyone to all go to the park etc only at the most popular times as seems to have been happening.

The risk is the same, unless you think the virus will dictate to its hosts that they all congregate together. :rolleyes:

Graham wrote: »

More people moving around = more virus spreads.

It's not rocket science.

Its not rocket science I agree. People will interact and move around just as much if not more when they are confined to a smaller area. Given a bigger radius to travel in, they can move to less-dense areas and will actually have less chance to spread, not more.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

No, this is redundant now. More congregations indoors = more virus spread.

Cool, you've discovered the indoors only variant now. You've had some busy afternoon.