nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Relaxation of restrictions

Red Alert

Simon Harris curiously made a comment that there was a limit to how long people could put up with extreme level of restrictions as we currently have. Already we’re seeing in Italy that people are starting to get restless. So two big questions:

1) on Easter Sunday, do you think there will be further restrictions, no change with just an extension or some relaxation?

2) what will be the first thing rolled back?

My own guess would be: extension for at least 1 week. Then to allow some businesses like DIY shops to reopen, perhaps allow gatherings of 2/3 people, maybe a token increase on 2km.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

What is your exit strategy?

I’m hopeful that we have four weeks of the current restrictions, followed by four weeks of less intensive restrictions (reopening of construction and other important sectors), followed by an assessment of where we are then.

Logan Roy

easypazz wrote: »

My source owns a petrol and he told me that on monday, wed, fri and sun, people can only use their left hand to fill the tank.

On the other days use your right hand.

That reduces spread by 50%

That's grand, you can mock me all you want. I'm just passing on what I was told by somebody who owns one.

Sweet.Science

Does any country have a plan for getting back to normal? Or are they just putting these restrictions in place so they have time to think of one

All i hear is flatten the curve protect the HSE/NHS etc

But whats the end game?

[Deleted User]

ITman88 wrote: »

Wow sure what’s the concern about.
This is what everyone who has been laid off needs to remember.
You walk up to your job and they will say come in and get back to work it’s great to have you.

What a patronising load of waffle

Pretty realistic tbh. I've gotten a 20% pay cut and it's fully expected to revert back to normal when this is over.

Loafing Oaf

ShyMets wrote: »

I'm 40 and a mild asthmatic and because of this in a higher risk category. I fully agree with the restrictions which have been implemented and support them being extended next Friday for at least two more weeks.

However, once we get in to May and if the numbers are stable

Is 'stable' good enough? Would there not need to be a consistent drop? And would testing not need to be ramped up from current levels and include an element of randomised testing to be sure the numbers reflected reality?

salmocab

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Does any country have a plan for getting back to normal? Or are they just putting these restrictions in place so they have time to think of one

All i hear is flatten the curve protect the HSE/NHS etc

But whats the end game?

Nobody has a plan how to end it because as it’s a new phenomenon that we’ve never had to deal with there is no plan as there isn’t enough of an understanding of how it will go. Flattening the curve buys time for the medical world.

storker

somefeen wrote: »

If I was you I'd just head back to Donegal. If the guards stop you just say you were dropping your wife ( who is a nurse) to work and you're heading home. It's the truth and its perfectly reasonable.

That was my (true) explanation one of the times I was stopped. I was waved on immediately.

Humberto Salazar

The current restrictions will surely be extended for another two weeks. I'm sure they will be analysing the figures closely and hope by the end of April things are going the right way. Cannot stay this way much beyond that. Government have to make a tough call.

[Deleted User]

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Does any country have a plan for getting back to normal? Or are they just putting these restrictions in place so they have time to think of one

All i hear is flatten the curve protect the HSE/NHS etc

But whats the end game?

It's all about the data (which is why testing is so important, as ICU and death rates aren't enough data to go on). When we are past the peak, and going down the other side, some (not all) restrictions will be lifted for a period, to see what the data says. And if there is an increase that suggests that ICU might be overwhelmed agaib, then we go into lockdown 2.0. Until it subsides and we can be released again. Until the data suggests otherwise, when we go into lockdown 3.0.

Which is fine domestically or within the CTA (albeit would be really hard for schools to manage an on / off lockdown). Dont know what happens about freeing up international travel though.....realistically that is probably going to have to wait for a global vaccine

niallo27

faceman wrote: »

What should we do then? Round up old people in paddy wagons and ship them off to a remote island? Or how about a slaughterhouse?

Oh wait, a number of babies of have died around the world too. Should we include them in your plan? What about asthma sufferers. Sure throw them in the mix too.

Have you looked at the havoc that the virus has raged in Italy and Spain’s hospitals? The burden on the healthcare systems? The unprecedented number of deaths?

So tell us, what’s an acceptable number of deaths? 100, 1000 10000? Or does it matter if the people fall in a certain demographic like you said anyway?

I truly feel sorry for you.

Why go to the extreme, there has to be a balance here.

storker

tritriagain wrote: »

Thats 1800 per person if this lasts the 12 weeks. A lot of people saying the economy is wrecked and we will need investment . squandering money now won't help.

I think a a lot of people are getting too worked up about this. The estimated cost according to the Central Bank is 22 billion - that's a fraction what we paid to bail out the banks. And unlike last time, every country is in the same boat, including Germany. We may well see some surprisingly innovative and flexible responses to handling these costs when the time comes to pay the bill.

Humberto Salazar

Logan Roy wrote: »

Have heard from a well informed source that significant % of petrol stations will have to close under stricter measures to be implemented.

That's plain silly talk.

jlm29

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is 'stable' good enough? Would there not need to be a consistent drop? And would testing not need to be ramped up from current levels and include an element of randomised testing to be sure the numbers reflected reality?

Current levels of testing aren’t an issue though. They had to put more restrictions on who was being tested because 95% of the tests that were being done were negative, so they tightened the criteria to ensure that they’d test the right people and shorten the wait times. Every Tom, dick and Harry with a runny nose was being tested before that.

El_Duderino 09

Humberto Salazar wrote: »

That's plain silly talk.

It's not silly talk at all. The demand for the products they sell has almost collapsed. Why would they all stay open if even fewer people are going to be allowed to travel to work?

jmayo

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you'll find you couldn't fight a war for very long without an economy.

Discommoded? Not even worth a response to deliberately baiting words.

Countries have actually managed it.
Granted they are usually on their knees and nearing defeat.

VinLieger wrote: »

And hospitals will still be overwhelmed by patients as while those ages are the most vulnerable many many young people still require hospitalisation to beat this thing.

How do people still not understand this simple fact?

Because they couldn't give a sh** about others.
They are young healthy and don't think they will need a hospital, so what if they are overwhelmed.

They are "I'm alright so feck the rest of ye".

They are part of the modern generations who have been reared in an Ireland which for the most part gave them almost everything they wanted when they wanted it.
Granted the only hiccup to that has been the cost of accommodation and ability to buy a home.
I guess some of them may even be happy that lots of the elderly will be popping their clogs and the houses they have been selfishly taking up will be released to the market.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Letting kids out to mix.

Another dropping kids up to grandparents for a break.

Fooking morons.
Absolute fooking morons.

KiKi III wrote: »

The amount of posters suggesting we isolate the old and the sick indefinitely so they don’t have to make any sacrifices is sickening.

And unworkable. Utterly unworkable.

1 in 5 people in Ireland is over 65. 1 in 12 has asthma.

As I said they couldn't give a rats ass about anyone.
All they care about is their lifestyle is being impinged and they will lose money.

And even though they keep on about the economy, they don't appear to notice that we are a huge exporting economy and there isn't demand for some of those goods and services in other countries at the moment.
Demand for anything bar medical related has fallen off a clift.

Also even if we open pubs and restaurants, do they expect them to be full of people.
Of course the me feiners and the morons will be back, but will the rest of the people.
The part of the economy that is tourism is non existent at the moment and for the foreseeable future as people simply are not travelling.

And when the whinging about the economy is not seen to be working, the old faithful is dragged out, the onset of mass mental illness.

FFS one would think half the country is suffering from mental illness or suicidal tendencies listening to some posters.

It is like listening to kids complain they are bored, even though they have multiple 24hr a day TV stations, radio, internet, tablets, mobile phones, computer games, computers and those good old fashioned things called books are even now available on electronic devices.

storker

facehugger99 wrote: »

The median age of deaths in Ireland is 82.

It's preposterous that we're flirting with wrecking the economy for generations over this.

It's a virus that is serious for a very specific demographic that are easy to identify and protect - the very old and the very sick.

For everyone else the risk is negligible.

Generations? The bank bailout what twice the Central Bank's estimated cost of COVID-19, and we were back to full employment in a decade. Maybe dial back a little on the melodramatics?

Are high-cost bailouts only bad when they help the ordinary citizen?

KiKi III

salmocab wrote: »

Nobody has a plan how to end it because as it’s a new phenomenon that we’ve never had to deal with there is no plan as there isn’t enough of an understanding of how it will go. Flattening the curve buys time for the medical world.

There’s a huge clinical trial happening globally next week to test treatments, and there’s a massive race on for a vaccine. The vaccine is probably 12-18 months out so hopefully one of the treatments pans out.

faceman

easypazz wrote: »

Its called cocooning. Effective when done properly, but I know over 70's still going to the shop, I know kids being sent to granny for babysitting.

This is why there are all those deaths you refer to around the world.

Why are you suggesting we slaughter babies?

Cocooning then elderly while everyone else goes about their life as normal prolongs the length of time the virus stays in society and also puts other demographs at risk.

Where did I suggest we slaughter babies? Read my post again if you’re confused

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

The amount of posters suggesting we isolate the old and the sick indefinitely so they don’t have to make any sacrifices is sickening.

And unworkable. Utterly unworkable.

1 in 5 people in Ireland is over 65. 1 in 12 has asthma.

It's not about 'making sacrifices'. People need to keep the economy going. These initial strict measures are fine for a short time but what happens after that? The virus isn't going to just disappear anytime soon, so either the old and the sick are going to have to be isolated for a longer time anyway, or the entire country grinds to a halt until a vaccine is found.

I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen.

easypazz

KiKi III wrote: »

I’m hopeful that we have four weeks of the current restrictions, followed by four weeks of less intensive restrictions (reopening of construction and other important sectors), followed by an assessment of where we are then.

I genuinely hope you are right, but then the risk is somebody imports it and the cycle starts again and we are back to square one.

My view is we build herd immunity, let younger and healthier people to mix gradually at a rate that hospitals can cope, and then once a lot of people are immune allow old people into the mix, with so many people immune the risk is lower.

Its about controlling the deaths and the ICU beds. No matter how we manage it there will be many deaths.

jonnny68

alias no.9 wrote: »

*Pure Speculation but possible changes*

No outdoor exercise.

Limited access to shops, maybe two visits a week per household with just a single person making that trip.

A further tightening of the types of workplace allowed to operate.

Don't assume that the current scenario is as tight as it will get. If you don't want to see it getting locked down further, then isolate as best as you can and use whatever influence you have to get others to do the same.

Restrictions will get tighter until it is contained. Restrictions will start to lift after a lag of two to three weeks after effective containment.

not gonna happen, its bad enough as it is, this wont end well if tney attempt to impose any of those restrictions you mentioned, not in the slightest.

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

I genuinely hope you are right, but then the risk is somebody imports it and the cycle starts again and we are back to square one.

My view is we build herd immunity, let younger and healthier people to mix gradually at a rate that hospitals can cope, and then once a lot of people are immune allow old people into the mix, with so many people immune the risk is lower.

Its about controlling the deaths and the ICU beds. No matter how we manage it there will be many deaths.

Your view of “herd immunity” is not supported by evidence and the countries that tried it have all backtracked.

You should read some of the descriptions of “mild” symptoms. I’m healthy, young people this can include a week of high fever and difficulty breathing.

KiKi III

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's not about 'making sacrifices'. People need to keep the economy going. These initial strict measures are fine for a short time but what happens after that? The virus isn't going to just disappear anytime soon, so either the old and the sick are going to have to be isolated for a longer time anyway, or the entire country grinds to a halt until a vaccine is found.

I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen.

What’s your “solution”, Lainey? You’re quick to point out problems but slow enough to provide contributions about positive solutions.

El_Duderino 09

storker wrote: »

Generations? The bank bailout what twice the Central Bank's estimated cost of COVID-19, and we were back to full employment in a decade. Maybe dial back a little on the melodramatics?

Are high-cost bailouts only bad when they help the ordinary citizen?

That's certainly not the way I'd put it. But I think we should discuss the reasons we're doing the lockdown and the consequences of locking down the economy.

There's a chance that in the future they will look back at this period and call it a "correction" in the age demographics. So much money is spent on keeping the old people alive and paying their health care costs as they get older and sicker. We Might well have had the discussion and agreed that it's the right thing to do and pursued the same policy of locking down to protect the old and vulnerable. But we should not be afraid to have the discussion.

In reality, when push comes to shove, they prioritise the young over the old - when they are short of ventilators, they young and healthy get priority.

easypazz

storker wrote: »

I think a a lot of people are getting too worked up about this. The estimated cost according to the Central Bank is 22 million - that's a fraction what we paid to bail out the banks. And unlike last time, every country is in the same boat, including Germany. We may well see some surprisingly innovative and flexible responses to handling these costs when the time comes to pay the bill.

€350x500000 people x 12 weeks

=€2.2BILLION

Gael23

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's certainly not the way I'd put it. But I think we should discuss the reasons we're doing the lockdown and the consequences of locking down the economy.

There's a chance that in the future they will look back at this period and call it a "correction" in the age demographics. So much money is spent on keeping the old people alive and paying their health care costs as they get older and sicker. We Might well have had the discussion and agreed that it's the right thing to do and pursued the same policy of locking down to protect the old and vulnerable. But we should not be afraid to have the discussion.

In reality, when push comes to shove, they prioritise the young over the old - when they are short of ventilators, they young and healthy get priority.

You have healthy older people too. My grandad is 83 soon and apart from worn out knees and being hard of hearing he’s in pretty good health

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

€350x500000 people x 12 weeks

=€2.2BILLION

We collected 10.4billion in taxes last year.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0509/1048408-revenue-commissioners-annual-report/

This is going to be expensive, no one is denying that - but we’ll get through it.

easypazz

faceman wrote: »

Cocooning then elderly while everyone else goes about their life as normal prolongs the length of time the virus stays in society and also puts other demographs at risk.

Where did I suggest we slaughter babies? Read my post again if you’re confused

So what is your exit strategy?

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

What’s your “solution”, Lainey? You’re quick to point out problems but slow enough to provide contributions about positive solutions.

I've said a million times that the only workable solution is to slowly start opening things back up gradually once we're over the peak and the number of cases has stabilised, with the most vulnerable staying at home for longer and those who are younger/healthier/already had the virus heading back to work.

You've previously kept talking about 'four weeks', as if any of us are talking about it being difficult to keep to four weeks of lockdown. Nobody is saying that. Of course people can 'suck it up' for a month or so. The question is, what happens beyond that?

It's really starting to worry me how many people seem to think they can stay at home for a few weeks for the 'greater good' and then everything will be grand.

VinLieger

KiKi III wrote: »

We collected 10.4billion in taxes last year.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0509/1048408-revenue-commissioners-annual-report/

This is going to be expensive, no one is denying that - but we’ll get through it.

Exactly, the election was fought over an 11 billion fiscal space and what to do with it, we now know its a very much needed rainy day fund to tide usnover