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

polesheep

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL, it’s hardly pedantic to point out that you put in a quote as “evidence” of hyperbole on the other side of the argument but don’t quote it properly so we can link back to the original comment. You could have just wrote it yourself and put quotation marks around it for all we know. Poor stuff.

'Written'. Poor stuff.

tobefrank321

normanoffside wrote: »

ICU numbers have already plateaued

Well by plateau, I mean the current total in ICU. So if there is currently for example 150 in ICU, it needs to stay at that number and then go down to a total of less than 100 in ICU. This then would enable them to lift restrictions for a month, before ICU numbers start to go back up again. And so on.

begbysback

rm212 wrote: »

Also have a chronic illness and I’m 24. Certainly feeling expendable from some comments on this thread... that doesn’t help my pre-existing medicated mental health issues that people supposedly care about. As you say, I reckon it’s a mask for the real motive

I really feel it for people in your situation, my preference would be to get back to some sort of normality asap, but I do see that people like yourself may have to wait until a bit longer where a vaccine or some sort of effective treatment is found. Until then I believe stuff like rent restrictions, mortgage relief, and subsidized payments should continue for the at risk groups who may have to isolate that bit longer.

niallo27

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What's an acceptable death rate for your ability to have a pint and wander the shops?

Nobody said anything about a ****en pint or going to the shops. Where did anyone say that.

normanoffside

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Well by plateau, I mean the current total in ICU. So if there is currently for example 150 in ICU, it needs to stay at that number and then go down to a total of less than 100 in ICU. This then would enable them to lift restrictions for a month, before ICU numbers start to go back up again. And so on.

By the number they are giving every day it's fairly clear to me that more people are leaving ICU than going in.

169 have been admitted to ICU
33 Have recovered
Some others will have unfortunately died after being in ICU

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0407/1128957-covid-hospital-cases/
Figures show that 169 patients have been admitted to intensive care units with the virus to date.

The latest data is that 33 people have recovered from ICU.

Dodge

niallo27 wrote: »

Nobody said anything about a ****en pint or going to the shops. Where did anyone say that.

So what business that are closed are you talking about then?

Because they are by some distance the two biggest sectors involved

Pretty much all industry is still working away

Also what do you think this mythical economy is if it isn’t people spending money on goods and services?

0gac3yjefb5sv7

If the numbers of new cases are less than yesterday, it would be great news that we may have peaked already.

TheCitizen

polesheep wrote: »

'Written'. Poor stuff.

You just wrote that line in the previous post and put quotation marks around it yourself didn’t you

KrustyUCC

People for the most part get the need for restrictions

According to the government they have made a difference

Since Leo's speech on March 12th they have added further and further restrictions

If people followed advice from March 12th social interactions would be limited outside of work

Taking to the 19th of April the existing restrictions will 5 weeks 4 days or 39 days

Add the expected minimum 2 weeks to May 3rd 7 weeks 4 days or 54 days

That's a long time not to see friends, family, relationships unless you live with them

The longer it goes on the harder it is for a lot of people

It is a tough balance to get right but people need hope and a plan for getting back to a bit of normality

MOH

normanoffside wrote: »

It’s not just about money or economy.
Have you ever considered people’s mental health/suicide rates/quality of life?
For most people going to work helps them feel good.

Just as an example, calls to childline are up 25% on normal.
Dentist are not working.
Non Covid operations cancelled. People on the waiting lists years and now back to square one.

You have to assess deaths and misery caused by having a lockdown when assessing if it’s worth it.

This. I've nothing against the current lockdown. I'm not enjoying it, but if it goes on for a few more weeks to relieve pressure on critical care places, fine. Add an extra week or two to just try to relieve the strain on front line health workers. But the notion of extending it for months, or until a vaccine is developed, isn't going to work. Off the top of my head:

- Suicide prevention charities recording greatly increased call numbers, while losing a lot of funding which mainly comes from now cancelled fund raising activities
- Domestic violence support lines recording up to 50% increase in calls (Europe-wide, may be overstated for Ireland)
- Long term staying mainly indoors, there's going to be a general deterioration in people's health, which ironically is going to push more people into the high risk category
- Potentially fatal ailments which are treatable if detected early are going to be missed. There's already cases of people not going in immediately for heart attacks and strokes.

Thankfully, it's not my job, but at some point factors like these have to be taken into consideration and weighed against the benefits of a continued lockdown. Dismissing them as fearmongering is just childish.

KrustyUCC

Then you get idiots like this which make things harder for the majority who are following the restrictions

Gardaí stopped a car in Fermoy this morning, which had travelled from Meath 'for the spin and to visit.'

Gardaí are reminding the public to 'please remember the 2km radius and only essential travel.'

Sweet.Science

Austria are coming out the far side of this it seems

How long after Austria did we lockdown ?

You would assume all going thats the timeframe we have left before we start easing restrictions

nj27

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Austria are coming out the far side of this it seems

How long after Austria did we lockdown ?

You would assume all going thats the timeframe we have left before we start easing restrictions

Austria went into lockdown on the 16th of March, so they were a bit ahead of the game and likely to relax measures before countries who imposed it later. I'd also assume the earlier the lockdown the more effective it is as they spent less time in the more or less rampant spreading period.

Dodge

International comparisons aren’t really like for like either. Every culture has its own idiosyncrasies

What’s good for Austria may not be good for Spain and what’s good for Portugal may not be good for Ireland etc etc

Turkey was the last country to impose restrictions and they’re ramping up to near full lockdown now

StringerBell

I would say we can expect it to be extended to the 19th at least, with no real increase in restrictions but the signing into legislation the powers to fine people for breaking the restrictions etc. People are now getting restless and fed up of the restrictions already and will start to break them a little more so it is just the tightening of that aspect I see coming for the moment.

normanoffside

nj27 wrote: »

Austria went into lockdown on the 16th of March, so they were a bit ahead of the game and likely to relax measures before countries who imposed it later. I'd also assume the earlier the lockdown the more effective it is as they spent less time in the more or less rampant spreading period.

But as was already pointed out, Leo made his speech on 12th march and closed schools and introduced lots of restrictions from the 14th.

We might not have been in full lock-down from this time but in terms of efficacy, not far off it.

hmmm

It's an impossible decision for politicians and health experts to take. Impossible. Glad I'm not in their shoes.

Until we get a vaccine, we have to live with this disease. The experts are saying this could be 18 months to 2 years.

For people with pre-existing conditions, unfortunately I don't see anything they can do other than stay isolated. Obviously we need to do everything we can to support them. If they live with other people the other people will also be asked to isolate, or people will need to be supported to move somewhere else, until we have a vaccine.

We need to avoid the ICUs and staff in hospitals in general from becoming overloaded.

It's clear also we can't simply jail the population for 2 years.

Right now I'd say we're hoping for something to emerge in the next 3 months - ideally a medical breakthrough, or some new understanding of how the disease spreads. I think we can do 3 months of lockdowns, but not much more. Whatever about the impact on people, our economy and tax revenue would disappear - and without taxes, we can't pay for healthcare, social welfare etc.

Beyond that I think we'll be looking at an 80% economy - people will be left back to work if social distancing can be reasonably implemented. No pubs. Restaurants can open with tables well spaced. Empty middle seats on planes. People still encouraged to work from home if possible. Social distancing still implemented, but not to the same intensity - we'll live with 75% compliance. Geographic lockdowns if required for particular hotspots.

Pete_Cavan

rm212 wrote: »

Also have a chronic illness and I’m 24. Certainly feeling expendable from some comments on this thread... that doesn’t help my pre-existing medicated mental health issues that people supposedly care about. As you say, I reckon it’s a mask for the real motive

But the virus will not be eliminated any time soon. We all can't just stay at home and wait for it to disappear. People without other health issues are going to have to get it to build up some immunity in the population which will be beneficial to those with issues. The health system is coping well and we have bought time to build up extra capacity, we are going to have to bite the bullet and use that capacity instead of letting it sit while the economy crumbles.

road_high

Thespoofer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with it but restricting alcohol sales ( I repeat, I wouldn't agree with it)

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if alcohol was restricted. Might be a good thing for our medical services. But more likely lead to anarchy from that class.

Padre_Pio

road_high wrote: »

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if alcohol was restricted. Might be a good thing for our medical services. But more likely lead to anarchy from that class.

I would say most of the pressure from alcohol abuse is gone now that pubs and clubs are closed and gatherings are frowned upon.

Banning alcohol all together seems very draconian and I don't see what it would accomplish.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But the virus will not be eliminated any time soon. We all can't just stay at home and wait for it to disappear. People without other health issues are going to have to get it to build up some immunity in the population which will be beneficial to those with issues. The health system is coping well and we have bought time to build up extra capacity, we are going to have to bite the bullet and use that capacity instead of letting it sit while the economy crumbles.

I don't know how true that statement is. Hospitals are crying out for PPE, something like 25% of our positive cases are HCPs.
Also, that's right now today, next week things could be totally different and far worse.

People don't seem to be able to look ahead and see the potential risks of relaxing restrictions. It seems to be very short sighted.

road_high

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I would say most of the pressure from alcohol abuse is gone now that pubs and clubs are closed and gatherings are frowned upon.

Banning alcohol all together seems very draconian and I don't see what it would accomplish.

Just moved to homes I'd wager. Domestic violence must be through the roof. Desperate for any woman/family trapped by this.
Alcohol is the ultimate non essnetial item. Yet we can't buy a tin of paint?

Red Alert

It's time now for them to come up with some clear answers as to how things are going to work when restrictions are lifted. The good news about relaxing restrictions is that partial relaxation is easier than partial imposition:

People have made behavioural changes in how they plan their shopping, and how they do it once there. People are used to queueing and to new regulations at checkouts etc. This can essentially be kept as-is.

Older and vulnerable people are cocooned, and family and support services have figured out how to support them during this time. This can again be kept as-is.

We should revert to allowing people to enjoy the outdoors or visit private houses in very small groups. This would allow many families and those in relationships who don't live together to have a semblance of normality return.

In terms of the 2km limit, you could make a meaningless extension to 3 or 4km, which would be psychologically good.

Non-essential businesses like DIY stores should be given a set of mandatory procedures. Once they can "tick the box" against all of them they can open. Things like seggregated entrance/exit, trolley wash, hand sanitiser / wash station at entrances and exit, limiting in-store numbers, keeping any services relying on person-person contact suspended, removal of customer-facing demos/touch screens.

Malls and Department stores could even qualify if they implemented one-way systems, locked off or controlled access to lifts, kept in-store cafes closed.

Workplaces should maintain remote working as is, except for workers involved in businesses that are opening. Any worker that has been remote working for the last couple of weeks must still do so.

hmmm

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Banning alcohol all together seems very draconian and I don't see what it would accomplish.

It would keep the puritans who are jumping on this crisis happy. Several cranks and opportunists have been exploiting this opportunity for their own benefit e.g. to get neighbourhood kids off the street, close access to national parks, try and get off-licences closed.

We need to be careful here to ensure we keep national support - this is a medical crisis only, the purpose of the restrictions is not to allow people to start imposing their strict moral values on society.

Tenzor07

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I would say most of the pressure from alcohol abuse is gone now that pubs and clubs are closed and gatherings are frowned upon.
Banning alcohol all together seems very draconian and I don't see what it would accomplish..

Agree..

Having the pubs closed would probably mean people are drinking more, out of boredom, stress/anxiety, and the fact that at home you can pour your own measures of spirits, you can purchase beer for €2.29 a litre, less than half the price of a pint!

If the Irish government bans alcohol sales for some ridiculous reason and it's not banned in Northern Ireland, then the Gardai will have to mount checkpoints across the border to stop people bringing it back.

Illegal sales will also skyrocket as criminals will move in to supply alcohol, again making more work for Gardai to deal with.

So in short, No!

jonnny68

road_high wrote: »

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if alcohol was restricted. Might be a good thing for our medical services. But more likely lead to anarchy from that class.

"from that class" ??

What class is this? you are aware the majority of this country would drink alcohol, restricting alcohol what would that achieve only absolute anarchy

Padre_Pio

road_high wrote: »

Just moved to homes I'd wager. Domestic violence must be through the roof. Desperate for any woman/family trapped by this.
Alcohol is the ultimate non essnetial item. Yet we can't buy a tin of paint?

I don't know anything about domestic violence, but I don't see how banning alcohol is going to do much to alleviate domestic violence. An abusive relationship is still abusive, whether alcohol is involved or no. At the same time, the 99.99% of people who drink responsibly are going to go spare and start breaking restrictions.

As my mother would say, it's ridiculous she has to go out shopping twice on Sunday, as she can't buy wine before 10am. What's the point of having a dedicated time for over 60's when parts of the shop are still shut?

Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Agree..

Having the pubs closed would probably mean people are drinking more, out of boredom, stress/anxiety, and the fact that at home you can pour your own measures of spirits, you can purchase beer for €2.29 a litre, less than half the price of a pint!

Ya know i doubt that. The hordes of people on Harcourt street every night aren't sitting at home now necking vodka and red bull.

growleaves

Massive unemployment + Alcohol Prohibition = ?

Anyone for a glass of bathtub gin?

polesheep

TheCitizen wrote: »

You just wrote that line in the previous post and put quotation marks around it yourself didn’t you

I was quoting rm212. I'm new to posting so not familiar with the method for reposting a quote.

bladespin

growleaves wrote: »

Massive unemployment + Alcohol Prohibition = ?

Anyone for a glass of bathtub gin?

I see an opportunity! This could be big

Allinall

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't know anything about domestic violence, but I don't see how banning alcohol is going to do much to alleviate domestic violence. An abusive relationship is still abusive, whether alcohol is involved or no. At the same time, the 99.99% of people who drink responsibly are going to go spare and start breaking restrictions.

As my mother would say, it's ridiculous she has to go out shopping twice on Sunday, as she can't buy wine before 10am. What's the point of having a dedicated time for over 60's when parts of the shop are still shut?

Builders providers are still open. You can still buy paint if you want.

Ya know i doubt that. The hordes of people on Harcourt street every night aren't sitting at home now necking vodka and red bull.

Does not compute.