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

VonLuck

housemouse wrote: »

Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences.

Even if the government was to by some miracle invest €22 billion today, the results of this investment would not be instantaneous. The problem is that there are limited ventilators globally and therefore cannot be purchased. There are limited medical professionals and cannot just appear overnight. In the short term the only solution is lock down until the number of cases become manageable with the resources available.

donaghs

Dodge wrote: »

See what you’ve done there is suggest that economists should be the ultimate decider in any policy decision

And that won’t and can’t ever happen.

Because economists rarely think about people and often get figures quite wrong. Mostly because they guess/project based off their own biases of course

Medicine is a hard science. Economics isn’t. And policy can’t be decided solely by either

We also need to plan for the future. Is it wrong to consider that we could destroy our future because of a particular approach taken to save lives in the present?

Not just "the economy", but the basic society we have now. Basic standards of living and current life expectancy. Look at Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, except far more global.

Dodge

housemouse wrote: »

The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic.

Medical experts are not economists.

See what you’ve done there is suggest that economists should be the ultimate decider in any policy decision

And that won’t and can’t ever happen.

Because economists rarely think about people and often get figures quite wrong. Mostly because they guess/project based off their own biases of course

Medicine is a hard science. Economics isn’t. And policy can’t be decided solely by either

hmmm

housemouse wrote: »

If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.

We didn't have time to consider the alternatives. Being all captain hindsight about it isn't helpful.

The government and HSE had to take the WHO & ECDC advice, and act on it. Which in fairness they have. It's not perfect, but in any crisis you have to make quick decisions and just get on with things as best you can.

The pandemic plans we had were based on Influenza. No-one (anywhere in the world) was prepared for a pandemic with this rate of hospitalisations.

Padre_Pio

Allinall wrote: »

If they go spare and start breaking restrictions, then they are not responsible drinkers.

I don't see how the two are related.
Unless they ban alcohol in the North, people will just drive up there and stock up for friends and family, same as they do when the pound falls against the euro.

The suggestion is overly pious and I believe the poster is using the pandemic as an excuse to push their own agenda.

donaghs

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly don't think you care about the mental health impact. We'd also face a severe mental health if large proportions of the population were to start dropping dead as a result of not taking the measures we have. I'm technically higher risk due to a chronic illness btw, I'm 28 but sure I'm expendable.

Also work for an Irish company that expects no business for months regardless of if everyone went back to work in the morning. It's a global hit, every country is taking similar measures.

Look at the death rate stats. Depends on the interpretation of "high". Of course we don't want people to die from COVID. And provisions can be made to protect the old and vulnerable. Roughly 4.7% of people who get it die, but if you can protect old and vulnerable it goes down to 0.03% or lower, just above season flu which is about 0.01%.

But as you say its global, and if we end up in a global Great Depression, I suspect it will have a worse impact on life expectancy than COVID.

KrustyUCC

Yes but at least i can't see the government being crazy enough to follow Joe Barry's advice

They are already asking the population to make major sacrifices as it is

lalababa

Why were alcohol time restrictions brought in to supermarkets and offies? VFI. Why is min pricing being brought in .VFI. Why was the drink licence for 5k and serve food legislation quashed. VFI.
They are a powerful lobby group, with a very visible presence in every village, town etc.
The only one they lost was the drink driving limits.

KrustyUCC

Prob would be the last straw kinda like water charges on top of local property tax etc

Allinall

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Computes perfectly well. People are already annoyed. Why put unnecessary restrictions on them to top it all off?

If they go spare and start breaking restrictions, then they are not responsible drinkers.

VinLieger

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.

Which class are youbtalking about? Parents looking to relax, the elderly who are by themselves and one of the few joys they have is a drink? Or maybe you mean Doctors, nurses and all the other frontline staff who have just come off an insane shift and could do with a drink.

What a disgustingly pious, pig ignorant and snobbish comment.

Padre_Pio

Allinall wrote: »

Does not compute.

Computes perfectly well. People are already annoyed. Why put unnecessary restrictions on them to top it all off?

fleet_admiral

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?

Men are victims of domestic violence too, but sadly society ignores them

lalababa

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?

Desperate for any woman/family ahhhh dog /cat aaahhh yerra man aswell. ðŸ˜±

housemouse

The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic.

Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody.

A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost.

For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government.

The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic.

But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative.

The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended.

Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences.

A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus.

Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more).

The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus.

And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two.

If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.

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.

bladespin

growleaves wrote: »

Massive unemployment + Alcohol Prohibition = ?

Anyone for a glass of bathtub gin?

I see an opportunity! This could be big

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.

growleaves

Massive unemployment + Alcohol Prohibition = ?

Anyone for a glass of bathtub gin?

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.