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

Pretzill

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

A lot more than you seem to think.

Very few people are advocating for just stopping the lockdown now. The question is, when we do we stop it? It's obvious that at some point the aim IS going to be for people just to get the virus, but without the health system being totally overwhelmed. Things will reopen before a vaccine is found. This isn't a question of if, it's a question of when, and some people on here seem blissfully ignorant of this.

I'm going to do everything I can do, not to get it. At the moment that's the best scenario for me -.I'd possibly not survive it. So some people will be keeping up all measures until this c@nt of a disease has died off, on it's own or a vaccine is created. For others looking at China it could be 4 months...1 down.

terrydel

polesheep wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that there are some who are dying, but that does not mean that we should ignore the situation in hand and the fact that in Ireland, the vast majority are not.

You could apply that logic to anything, let's ignore trying to control cancer in the population because the majority dont have it. Its nonsense.
The point of the lockdown is to ensure the least possible number of needless deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health service. It's that simple, and staggering how many cant or wont grasp this. The government, no doubt guided and influenced by what they saw in italy, chose this over the chaos and tragedy that no/token lockdown was guaranteed to bring. They essentially had two choices while staring down the barrel of a gun. They chose the correct one as evidenced right around the global.
Of course it was a 'poor and panicked' decision according to mr 16 likes, tho he cant say why.
The lockdown will be reduced and eventually removed when the modelling shows that the health service can look after the numbers it will face, which it clearly would not if they are lifted now or in the very near future.

Tell me how

polesheep wrote: »

I'm pointing out how easy it is to dismiss the minority out of hand, if one chose to do so. As you did.

Don't put words in my mouth. This is not a case of dismissing a minority as you are implying I said.

This is a case of using the best strategy (social distancing for all) to prevent the effect of this pandemic being much much greater than it might be.

I hope everyone is as concerned for the welfare for those who may feel on the margins of society when this is over as they do now when pleading their case as part of an argument for freeing up restrictions which every one is now experiencing.

terrydel

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth. This is not a case of dismissing a minority as you are implying I said.

This is a case of using the best strategy (social distancing for all) to prevent the effect of this pandemic being much much greater than it might be.

I hope everyone is as concerned for the welfare for those who may feel on the margins of society when this is over as they do now when pleading their case as part of an argument for freeing up restrictions which every one is now experiencing.

Very well said. Knowing the prevailing wind on boards.ie, they'll all return to voting for fg and their ilk, who don't give a ****e about the less fortunate 99% of the time.

polesheep

Pretzill wrote: »

I'm going to do everything I can do, not to get it. At the moment that's the best scenario for me -.I'd possibly not survive it. So some people will be keeping up all measures until this c@nt of a disease has died off, on it's own or a vaccine is created. For others looking at China it could be 4 months...1 down.

A very honest and open post. I feel that most of the posters advocating for a continued lockdown are probably in a similar predicament to you. It can't be easy. But, the fact is, we cannot continue with a lockdown for much longer. Instead we must find a way to provide the maximum protection we can to susceptible people until it either dies out or we get a vaccine. Fingers crossed we get a vaccine very soon.

polesheep

terrydel wrote: »

You could apply that logic to anything, let's ignore trying to control cancer in the population because the majority dont have it. Its nonsense.
The point of the lockdown is to ensure the least possible number of needless deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health service. It's that simple, and staggering how many cant or wont grasp this. The government, no doubt guided and influenced by what they saw in italy, chose this over the chaos and tragedy that no/token lockdown was guaranteed to bring. They essentially had two choices while staring down the barrel of a gun. They chose the correct one as evidenced right around the global.
Of course it was a 'poor and panicked' decision according to mr 16 likes, tho he cant say why.
The lockdown will be reduced and eventually removed when the modelling shows that the health service can look after the numbers it will face, which it clearly would not if they are lifted now or in the very near future.

It's late and perhaps you are sleepy. I was not stating an opinion. I was mimicking another posters post to show that his point could be used on both sides of the argument.

c montgomery

polesheep wrote: »

A very honest and open post. I feel that most of the posters advocating for a continued lockdown are probably in a similar predicament to you. It can't be easy. But, the fact is, we cannot continue with a lockdown for much longer. Instead we must find a way to provide the maximum protection we can to susceptible people until it either dies out or we get a vaccine. Fingers crossed we get a vaccine very soon.

Vaccine will be years, any vaccine earlier than that would not be proven safe
I'm not an expert but have heard this from numerous experts on TV and podcasts

polesheep

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth. This is not a case of dismissing a minority as you are implying I said.

This is a case of using the best strategy (social distancing for all) to prevent the effect of this pandemic being much much greater than it might be.

I hope everyone is as concerned for the welfare for those who may feel on the margins of society when this is over as they do now when pleading their case as part of an argument for freeing up restrictions which every one is now experiencing.

Unless you were using code, there was no other way in which to interpret your post.

c montgomery

Only 5 days left of lockdown.....

combat14

Liberation' as Wuhan's coronavirus lockdown ends after 76 days

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/liberation-as-wuhans-coronavirus-lockdown-ends-after-76-days

[Deleted User]

c montgomery wrote: »

Only 5 days left of lockdown.....

yes, that's why they are just now bringing in new laws to enforce it :pac:

Tell me how

polesheep wrote: »

Unless you were using code, there was no other way in which to interpret your post.

Don't worry about it. Some people just cannot get their head around things.

polesheep

c montgomery wrote: »

Vaccine will be years, any vaccine earlier than that would not be proven safe
I'm not an expert but have heard this from numerous experts on TV and podcasts

There are a number of potential vaccines that are based on existing vaccines that don't require the same lengthy trials. There are also a few potential vaccines being trialled that have been given permission to go straight to human testing. One of these began testing a few weeks ago. Of course, it could still take a long time, but no harm in being optimistic.

c montgomery

glasso wrote: »

yes, that's why they are just now bringing in new laws to enforce it :pac:

It will be a tough few days but the party Monday will be worth it

Tell me how

polesheep wrote: »

A very honest and open post. I feel that most of the posters advocating for a continued lockdown are probably in a similar predicament to you. It can't be easy. But, the fact is, we cannot continue with a lockdown for much longer. Instead we must find a way to provide the maximum protection we can to susceptible people until it either dies out or we get a vaccine. Fingers crossed we get a vaccine very soon.

There is a way. Social distancing as has been practiced over the last couple of weeks.

c montgomery

polesheep wrote: »

There are a number of potential vaccines that are based on existing vaccines that don't require the same lengthy trials. There are also a few potential vaccines being trialled that have been given permission to go straight to human testing. One of these began testing a few weeks ago. Of course, it could still take a long time, but no harm in being optimistic.

I'm fully optimistic when I say years as it's what the experts say
BCG hopefully works, a new vaccine will not come so easy

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote: »

Would you ever take off with this nonsense. I am Irish, am currently living in the US while all my friends and family are located back home or in other countries around the world.

They didn't ask me to leave any interest or compassion in the bin when I was walking through security at the airport.

What's nonsense? You are living in America not subject to the restrictions placed on people. Your knowledge of the effects on people are based on secondhand information so I suggest in your own words you 'take off'

polesheep

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a way. Social distancing as has been practiced over the last couple of weeks.

True, social distancing has proved to be very effective. Unfortunately, as we move out of restrictions, I doubt that it would provide sufficient protection for those most vulnerable.

Tell me how

polesheep wrote: »

True, social distancing has proved to be very effective. Unfortunately, as we move out of restrictions, I doubt that it would provide sufficient protection for those most vulnerable.

We are not at that point yet.
To get to that point, we will need the following.

easier access/faster turnaround testing
fast accurate contact tracing
cure/vaccine.

Suspect the last item is at least 12 months away and that the first 2 are at least a few weeks away yet.

polesheep

c montgomery wrote: »

I'm fully optimistic when I say years as it's what the experts say
BCG hopefully works, a new vaccine will not come so easy

That's not correct. The experts say it 'could' be years. They obviously cannot commit to a timeframe. The information I posted regarding the vaccine trials came directly from an immunologist. He was cautiously hopeful.

polesheep

Tell me how wrote: »

We are not at that point yet.
To get to that point, we will need the following.

easier access/faster turnaround testing
fast accurate contact tracing
cure/vaccine.

Suspect the last item is at least 12 months away and that the first 2 are at least a few weeks away yet.

The restrictions will not remain in place pending a cure/vaccine. It would be wonderful if a vaccine came soon to end the restrictions, but it's more likely to come quite a while after they are lifted.

c montgomery

polesheep wrote: »

That's not correct. The experts say it 'could' be years. They obviously cannot commit to a timeframe. The information I posted regarding the vaccine trials came directly from an immunologist. He was cautiously hopeful.

I hope your right, I just don't think you are.

polesheep

c montgomery wrote: »

I hope your right, I just don't think you are.

It's not a question of right or wrong. The trials are taking place, it's just a question of whether or not they will bear fruit. We can only hope they do. I'm off to bed. Good night to you.

Tell me how

polesheep wrote: »

The restrictions will not remain in place pending a cure/vaccine. It would be wonderful if a vaccine came soon to end the restrictions, but it's more likely to come quite a while after they are lifted.

Agreed. I meant to say that in my post that once points 1 and 2 are dependable (i.e a few weeks) I think restrictions will be lifted.
Final point may be necessary before large scale gatherings happen without restriction.

Idbatterim

BanditLuke wrote: »

FG gone right up in my estimation after tonight tbh. They are doing an outstanding job.

what? by following advice of others? Honestly, cant say I give them much credit, the rest, would be doing the same. We are a conservative country. This was always the route they were going to travel down. the conservatism, obviously was a good thing at the start, its the current bit, where many of us feel, will do more damage than good. We will see...

Larbre34

They had no business, as a lame duck Government, authorising those regulations restricting personal freedoms to the extent to which they do. At least half the acting cabinet knew it too.

Yes I'm aware some enforcement powers were needed to give effect to the Health Act of last month, but it should have been a) expedite a new Government with a mandate from the people and the support of Dáil Éireann b) enact the policy of that new Government including public health protection measures.

Tell me how

Larbre34 wrote: »

They had no business, as a lame duck Government, authorising those regulations restricting personal freedoms to the extent to which they do. At least half the acting cabinet knew it too.

Yes I'm aware some enforcement powers were needed to give effect to the Health Act of last month, but it should have been a) expedite a new Government with a mandate from the people and the support of Dáil Éireann b) enact the policy of that new Government including public health protection measures.

Think by and large the people are more than happy with the current circumstance with respect to the formation of the key government roles.

Idbatterim

'People have to get sick': New plan to expose young, healthy Australians to coronavirus by easing social distancing restrictions 'at a gentle pace' in a bid to boost immunity
Social distancing rules could be loosened to expose Australians to COVID-19
COVID-19 infections continue to drop across the country following strict rules
Controlled exposure to virus could allow society to return to normal faster

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8196229/Coronavirus-plan-expose-young-healthy-Australians-boost-immunity.html

interesting article, copied and pasted a very interesting bit, go to article to see graphs etc...

What does the coronavirus modelling show?
If no measures are taken

The theoretical modelling finds an uncontrolled COVID-19 pandemic scenario would overwhelm our health system for many weeks. 89 per cent of people would catch the virus, with 38 per cent requiring some medical care.

ICUs would be stretched well beyond capacity for a prolonged period. Only 15 per cent of people requiring ICU beds would be able to access one, even with the expanded ICU capacity in the model.

This graph shows three scenarios based on no restrictions (grey), quarantine (light blue) and social distancing (dark blue) +8
This graph shows three scenarios based on no restrictions (grey), quarantine (light blue) and social distancing (dark blue)

With quarantine and isolation

Quarantine and isolation would reduce the proportion of people who would catch the virus to 68 per cent, and those needing medical care to 29 per cent. Only an estimated 30 per cent of people requiring ICU beds would be able to access them.

With social distancing restrictions

If social distancing measures reduces transmission by 25 per cent, the proportion of people infected would be 38 per cent with 16 per cent requiring some medical care.

Eighty per cent of people who need ICU beds could access them.

With a 33 per cent reduction in transmission due to social distancing, the proportion of people infected is 12 per cent and only five per cent require some medical care.

In that scenario, everyone who needs an ICU bed over the course of the pandemic could access one.

The modelling finds our ICUs will cope if we continue to have effective social distancing, increase our health system capacity, and isolate people with the virus and their close contacts.

dockysher

Idbatterim wrote: »

'People have to get sick': New plan to expose young, healthy Australians to coronavirus by easing social distancing restrictions 'at a gentle pace' in a bid to boost immunity
Social distancing rules could be loosened to expose Australians to COVID-19
COVID-19 infections continue to drop across the country following strict rules
Controlled exposure to virus could allow society to return to normal faster

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8196229/Coronavirus-plan-expose-young-healthy-Australians-boost-immunity.html

interesting article, copied and pasted a very interesting bit, go to article to see graphs etc...

What does the coronavirus modelling show?
If no measures are taken

The theoretical modelling finds an uncontrolled COVID-19 pandemic scenario would overwhelm our health system for many weeks. 89 per cent of people would catch the virus, with 38 per cent requiring some medical care.

ICUs would be stretched well beyond capacity for a prolonged period. Only 15 per cent of people requiring ICU beds would be able to access one, even with the expanded ICU capacity in the model.

This graph shows three scenarios based on no restrictions (grey), quarantine (light blue) and social distancing (dark blue) +8
This graph shows three scenarios based on no restrictions (grey), quarantine (light blue) and social distancing (dark blue)

With quarantine and isolation

Quarantine and isolation would reduce the proportion of people who would catch the virus to 68 per cent, and those needing medical care to 29 per cent. Only an estimated 30 per cent of people requiring ICU beds would be able to access them.

With social distancing restrictions

If social distancing measures reduces transmission by 25 per cent, the proportion of people infected would be 38 per cent with 16 per cent requiring some medical care.

Eighty per cent of people who need ICU beds could access them.

With a 33 per cent reduction in transmission due to social distancing, the proportion of people infected is 12 per cent and only five per cent require some medical care.

In that scenario, everyone who needs an ICU bed over the course of the pandemic could access one.

The modelling finds our ICUs will cope if we continue to have effective social distancing, increase our health system capacity, and isolate people with the virus and their close contacts.

Are you a medical professional on this matter?

Idbatterim

dockysher wrote: »

Are you a medical professional on this matter?

what has that got to do with what I posted?! and no, I am not...