Relaxation of restrictions

ITman88 wrote: »

I think that’s proving a point. Restrictions are futile, only short term useful

Are you friends with any doctors or nurses, and have you shared your thoughts with them if so?

normanoffside

pjohnson wrote: »

Over 14,000 dead......do you think thats speculation?

People like you can see no context.

I have a friend in India, A country of 1.2 Billion People.
It's in total lockdown and you can't buy food for love or money.

How many people will die of starvation, malnutrition and other ailments because of our obsession with lockdown?

How many people will the lock down actually save anyway?
Look at the nursing homes here, will it make any difference to the mortality rate in nursing homes if Jimmy Or Josie is allowed to go back to their job in the city?

These questions need to be asked and considered.

I'm not saying many westerners will of starvation by the way, but many will die and suffer inadvertently from lock down measures.

ITman88 wrote: »

No.

It may only be people who have studied/worked hard up to now who are questioning the policies. Those who were part of a team at work and who greatly enjoyed being at work.

Some who may not have made any personal/professional investments, will, of course have absolutely no issue with the restrictions as it has no impact whatsoever on their lives.

How it doesn’t make sense to cocoon the vulnerable completely until a vaccine is produced, I don’t know.

I suppose it’s always easier to hide at home, and accuse who don’t want to of selfishness.

So we should lock up elderly those with heart conditions, lung problems, kidney problem, people with immunosuppressants up just so you can fanny around. How about smoker, obese people. Do you know how many people that is, how about their lives there investments there jobs, paying there bills

ITman88 wrote: »

If these restrictions remain in place long term, what will pay for the restrictions required?

This is a pointless hypothetical - the only purpose of it is for you to score a rhetorical point. Why is it pointless? Because there is not even a hint of a suggestion from the government that these restrictions will remain in place long-term.

timmy_mallet

normanoffside wrote: »

People like you can see no context.

I have a friend in India, A country of 1.2 Billion People.
It's in total lockdown and you can't buy food for love or money.

How many people will die of starvation, malnutrition and other ailments because of our obsession with lockdown?

How many people will the lock down actually save anyway?
Look at the nursing homes here, will it make any difference to the mortality rate in nursing homes if Jimmy Or Josie is allowed to go back to their job in the city?

These questions need to be asked and considered.

I'm not saying many westerners will of starvation by the way, but many will die and suffer inadvertently from lock down measures.

It's a zero sum game with these opinions

Ulysses Gaze

Gael23 wrote: »

How in practice will long term social distancing work?

It won't.

It can't in modern offices unless you tell half your workforce to work from home. It will mean restricting international travel for business meetings.

It will mean long term pub closures because if you really believe publicans are going to limit the number of patrons to 20 or 30 inside in any major Irish town...just ****ing lol.

Shops and shopping malls? How will you enforce it then?

KiKi III wrote: »

You are unable to differentiate between things that are your opinion and things that are facts borne out by evidence.

Just because you think something is true doesn't mean it is.

Well its easy to make an educated guess based on data from other countries, do you really think we wont see a large spike if we lift restrictions here in 4 weeks.

martingriff wrote: »

So we should lock up elderly those with heart conditions, lung problems, kidney problem, people with immunosuppressants up just so you can fanny around. How about smoker, obese people. Do you know how many people that is, how about there lifes there investments there jobs, paying there bills

Well the alternative is to cocoon everyone!!!

Fanny around?
I’m talking about the healthy going back to work. Try get some of the 850k to work.

And how are they paying the bills now?

Do you think we have implemented restrictions to completely eradicate Covid 19?

We haven’t, it’s here to stay, and that demographic is at risk until a vaccine

martingriff wrote: »

So we should lock up elderly those with heart conditions, lung problems, kidney problem, people with immunosuppressants up just so you can fanny around. How about smoker, obese people. Do you know how many people that is, how about there lifes there investments there jobs, paying there bills

They will always be vulnerable though, if restrictions are lifted in 6 weeks, these people will still be incredibly vulnerable.

Ulysses Gaze

normanoffside wrote: »

People like you can see no context.

I have a friend in India, A country of 1.2 Billion People.
It's in total lockdown and you can't buy food for love or money.

How many people will die of starvation, malnutrition and other ailments because of our obsession with lockdown?

How many people will the lock down actually save anyway?
Look at the nursing homes here, will it make any difference to the mortality rate in nursing homes if Jimmy Or Josie is allowed to go back to their job in the city?

These questions need to be asked and considered.

I'm not saying many westerners will of starvation by the way, but many will die and suffer inadvertently from lock down measures.

And how many people will die in India with a 20%+ hospitalisation rates if Modi et al go all out Herd Immunity.

Why did the British change their minds on herd immunity. Why are the Swedes doing the same?

Can all you people backing herd immunity please actually answer some of these things?

All we seem to get from you is - Lockdown won't work because x.

How will Herd Immunity work if expert opinion says it would be calamitous for societies?

niallo27 wrote: »

They will always be vulnerable though, if restrictions are lifted in 6 weeks, these people will still be incredibly vulnerable.

If people have adhered closely to the current regulations, the risk will have reduced substantially in six weeks.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And how many people will die in India with a 20%+ hospitalisation rates if Modi et al go all out Herd Immunity.

Likely very few will die in India. The average in India is twenty something.

ITman88 wrote: »

Well the alternative is to cocoon everyone!!!

Fanny around?
I’m talking about the healthy going back to work. Try get some of the 850k to work.

And how are they paying the bills now?

Do you think we have implemented restrictions to completely eradicate Covid 19?

We haven’t, it’s here to stay, and that demographic is at risk until a vaccine

Of course I know its not. You know people have dies from this with no underlying health and there are also those in ICU who are young healthy. The reason for thew restrictions are to get it to a manageable state not to overrun the system and by the way they are telling the old and those with health issue to cocoon.

KiKi III wrote: »

If people have adhered closely to the current regulations, the risk will have reduced substantially in six weeks.

This all started with one person in this country though, why could it not happen again. Tough decisions are going to have to be made at some stage.

[Deleted User]

ITman88 wrote: »

Well the alternative is to cocoon everyone!!!

Fanny around?
I’m talking about the healthy going back to work. Try get some of the 850k to work.

And how are they paying the bills now?

Do you think we have implemented restrictions to completely eradicate Covid 19?

We haven’t, it’s here to stay, and that demographic is at risk until a vaccine

I think its roughly 20% population need cocooning....plus anyone living/interacting with them

Anyone working in old folks homes/hospideals need cocooning aswell to avoid kids espially

Like i think your completly underestimating quite how many need cocooning.....i dont want my folks to die,coz some scabby **** comes into my job and cant hack a few weeks at home

Deleted User wrote: »

I think its roughly 20% population need cocooning....plus anyone living/interacting with them

Anyone working in old folks homes/hospideals need cocooning aswell to avoid kids espially

Like i think your completly underestimating quite how many need cocooning.....i dont want my folks to die,coz some scabby **** comes into my job and cant hack a few weeks at home

Do you think in a few weeks this will all be gone. That risk will still be there.

niallo27 wrote: »

This all started with one person in this country though, why could it not happen again. Tough decisions are going to have to be made at some stage.

Did it? Where did you get that info?

As far as I heard, tons of people came from Italy with it, and then again from Cheltenham. It didn't start with one person here.

In a few weeks, restrictions can start being lifted on a phased basis if people adhere to the guidelines now. But we'll probably be doing two metre distances and no large gatherings for a longer period. We'll all also be practicing better hygiene.

Even then, it's possible there will indeed be further outbreaks, but the goal will be to keep the numbers down as much as possible.

martingriff wrote: »

Of course I know its not. You know people have dies from this with no underlying health and there are also those in ICU who are young healthy. .

It’s has been no more dangerous to the young and healthy than seasonal influenza.

The sensationalism in the media is highlighting younger deaths.

niallo27 wrote: »

They will always be vulnerable though, if restrictions are lifted in 6 weeks, these people will still be incredibly vulnerable.

Restrictioon will not be lifted in 6 weeks eased so other places can open maybe but lifter I will see you in September at the earliest. Travel for holidays 2021

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you think in a few weeks this will all be gone. That risk will still be there.

Yes. But right now the risk is

Very big

Over time it will get

smaller and

smaller and

smaller

normanoffside

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And how many people will die in India with a 20%+ hospitalisation rates if Modi et al go all out Herd Immunity.

Why did the British change their minds on herd immunity. Why are the Swedes doing the same?

Can all you people backing herd immunity please actually answer some of these things?

All we seem to get from you is - Lockdown won't work because x.

How will Herd Immunity work if expert opinion says it would be calamitous for societies?

I never said I was backing Heard Immunity.

I am just asking some questions like for example, how much more effective are the lockdown measures introduced 10 days ago to say the restrictions that were already in place for the 2 weeks before?

Are the initial social distancing measures enough in the long term, do we really need to indefinitely shut everything else down?

Is there really any advantage to closing small businesses like takeaway coffee shops?

Nermal

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

How will Herd Immunity work if expert opinion says it would be calamitous for societies?

Sometimes it falls to us to choose the lesser of two calamities.

Logan Roy

martingriff wrote: »

So we should lock up elderly those with heart conditions, lung problems, kidney problem, people with immunosuppressants up just so you can fanny around. How about smoker, obese people. Do you know how many people that is, how about there lifes there investments there jobs, paying there bills

Where?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think its roughly 20% population need cocooning....plus anyone living/interacting with them

Anyone working in old folks homes/hospideals need cocooning aswell to avoid kids espially

Like i think your completly underestimating quite how many need cocooning.....i dont want my folks to die,coz some scabby **** comes into my job and cant hack a few weeks at home

So is your theory to cocoon 100% long term?

We are temporarily flattening a curve here

Logan Roy wrote: »

Where?

What you mean where?

Logan Roy

martingriff wrote: »

What you mean where?

You were saying there a lot so I was wondering where you meant.

timmy_mallet

KiKi III wrote: »

Yes. But right now the risk is

Very big

Over time it will get

smaller and

smaller and

smaller

Here we go again, explain how "it will get smaller and smaller"

Stheno

ITman88 wrote: »

No.

It may only be people who have studied/worked hard up to now who are questioning the policies. Those who were part of a team at work and who greatly enjoyed being at work.

Some who may not have made any personal/professional investments, will, of course have absolutely no issue with the restrictions as it has no impact whatsoever on their lives.

How it doesn’t make sense to cocoon the vulnerable completely until a vaccine is produced, I don’t know.

I suppose it’s always easier to hide at home, and accuse who don’t want to of selfishness.

Are you trying to say that people who are accepting the current restrictions have not studies or worked hard and are not part of teams or enjoy their work?