Relaxation of restrictions

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Another risk due to the lockdown.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1261194/Coronavirus-europe-news-food-shortage-farmer-fruit-vegetable-harvest-food-shortages-eu

Surely these are the sectors we can start moving the unemployed to work in?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You will be scarificing people no matter what. The deaths due to the economic devastation will be greater but never acknowledged.

Its easy say that, but if it was yours, your mother/father or grandparents and someone came up and said we have to let them die for the economic greater good would you still be as stalwart on that opinion?

Its easy say it when your not the ones doing the dying, saying something and grim reality of it are two different things.

Cupatae wrote: »

It is easy say that when you or anyone belong to you wasnt any of those people in North Italy, im sure if it was your own mother/father/sister/brother, your opinion wouldn't be as ruthless... The sweds... sticking there neck out.. or burying there heads in the snow...time will tell but going by the UK i wouldn't be putting money on it ending well, but i hope to god im wrong.

Nope, you could also quarantine new arrivals. Again, at the early stage politically difficult.

Another risk due to the lockdown.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1261194/Coronavirus-europe-news-food-shortage-farmer-fruit-vegetable-harvest-food-shortages-eu

Blueshoe

niallo27 wrote: »

You said earlier on you think 4 more weeks and some restrictions lifted. Now you are saying you dont want any restrictions lifted.

I said 2 more weeks then reassess. Always reassessing the situation.

Find where I said 4 weeks. Back up your statement

thebaz

donaghs wrote: »

It’s easy for me to be an armchair commentator, but the Govt are taking the easier decisions. The Swedes are sticking their neck out. If the Govt were really serious about stopping covid they could have stopped the early cases coming from northern Italy! But guess what, that was politically difficult.

One thing I don't like about this government they wont stand up to or at least question, the big international bodies such as the EU or WHO -

I have no doubt the reason the flights from North Italy were not stopped , was from EU pressure , no problem putting the country into 6 weeks of lockdown with legislation, but problem stopping flights from North Italy for a rugby game that was actually cancelled. A bit of bravery and creativity would have revealed the right decision, same as quaranteeing the Cheltemham crowd - but instead weak managment , handing out leaflets at airport and no enforced quaranteeing.

lbj666

Nermal wrote: »

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

Show us your work so??? It was very clear from all the exponential graphs thrown round based on the growth in Italy last month. The number of cases were multiplying by 2 every 3 days, anywhere between a 1 and 5% death rate eventually leads to a frightening figure. How the **** people dont seem to grasp how serious this would have been if left uncontrolled is beyond me.

Do you know why what i just said cant be proven wrong or right? because every bloody country has put in serious restrictions to curb it, we will never know whats it would have been like uncontrolled no country has dared to find out.

If we ease restrictions and the rate of spread goes back to 6 people. Say if theres 500 cases on a particular day, they would have passed it on unknowing to 3,000. That 3,000 would have passed it to 18000. What about 500 cases on the following day, they would have passed it to 3,000. That 3,000 would have passed it to 18000 and so on and so on and so. Keep that cycle going over a month and a half and you have 800,000 cases , 1% death rate = 80,000.

But of course if things starting escalating to that level again, we'd be back in our houses. So we wouldnt be able to prove that projection, nor would anyone want to dare try.

lord quackinton

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Belief and proof are two different things.

We just don't know. That is the problem.

And that swings both ways

donaghs wrote: »

It’s easy for me to be an armchair commentator, but the Govt are taking the easier decisions. The Swedes are sticking their neck out. If the Govt were really serious about stopping covid they could have stopped the early cases coming from northern Italy! But guess what, that was politically difficult.

It is easy say that when you or anyone belong to you wasnt any of those people in North Italy, im sure if it was your own mother/father/sister/brother, your opinion wouldn't be as ruthless... The sweds... sticking there neck out.. or burying there heads in the snow...time will tell but going by the UK i wouldn't be putting money on it ending well, but i hope to god im wrong.

lord quackinton wrote: »

It could take years to get a vaccine
I don’t believe 70,000 people would die per year in Ireland from Covid if there were no restrictions

What is the financial position of people Who think this lockdown madness should continue
Are they loaded, work in public sector and think they will be fine, are they on state welfare and think cuts won’t touch them

Belief and proof are two different things.

We just don't know. That is the problem.

polesheep

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.

Most people have been out of work for a month and counting.

donaghs wrote: »

It’s easy for me to be an armchair commentator, but the Govt are taking the easier decisions. The Swedes are sticking their neck out. If the Govt were really serious about stopping covid they could have stopped the early cases coming from northern Italy! But guess what, that was politically difficult.

The Swedes are now rowing back on their policies and are going to enforce stricter lockdown measures.

Cupatae wrote: »

Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up.

Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.

If it’s done “incrementally”... Starting with the low risk groups who are not in contact with high risk groups...

lord quackinton

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If restrictions are lifted too soon before a vaccine is developed the annual death toll would be far higher than 10000. You could multiply that figure by a factor of 7 or 8.

It could take years to get a vaccine
I don’t believe 70,000 people would die per year in Ireland from Covid if there were no restrictions

What is the financial position of people Who think this lockdown madness should continue
Are they loaded, work in public sector and think they will be fine, are they on state welfare and think cuts won’t touch them

polesheep

Cupatae wrote: »

They had a choice to make, protect the people or protect the economy, they chose the people, and rightly so imo we can always rebuild.. look at the UK tried to protect the economy and are paying a high price for it now.

It wasn't the binary choice they want you to believe it was.

Cupatae wrote: »

I meant as quick as possible while saving the most at risk, i wouldnt sacrifice people for economy sake.

You will be scarificing people no matter what. The deaths due to the economic devastation will be greater but never acknowledged.

Cupatae wrote: »

Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up.

Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.

It’s easy for me to be an armchair commentator, but the Govt are taking the easier decisions. The Swedes are sticking their neck out. If the Govt were really serious about stopping covid they could have stopped the early cases coming from northern Italy! But guess what, that was politically difficult.

polesheep

Cupatae wrote: »

Ah a vaccine within a year is happy talk, then u have people the world over demanding it... id say if we have one within 2 we d be doing well.

I think the ultimate goal is management of it, at this stage.. just control the numbers flowing into hospitals but there is alot riding on when the returns to work begin and how.. i imagine it ll be a very different world we ll be returning to we ll have a new definition of "normal"

The ultimate goal is a vaccine and there are scientists right around the globe working on it. A lot of other projects have been put on hold to make way for vaccine research. And if they are successful, we'll go back to normal overnight - bar the recession of course:D

donaghs wrote: »

As quick as possible means letting to it spread as quickly as possible. Those you recover get immunity. Hard to stomach the death toll on that. Especially without a healthcare system ready for it.

I meant as quick as possible while saving the most at risk, i wouldnt sacrifice people for economy sake.

donaghs wrote: »

In the 20s/30s healthy group less than 50% probably will have symptoms. And even half of them being sick is still more than telling everyone to stay at home?

Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up.

Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.

Cupatae wrote: »

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

As quick as possible means letting to it spread as quickly as possible. Those you recover get immunity. Hard to stomach the death toll on that. Especially without a healthcare system ready for it.

Cupatae wrote: »

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

There is no beating it quickly, the lockdown is about flattening the curve but it prolongs it , the longer a lockdown continues the greater the economic damage.Many jobs have already been permanently lost . It is still going to be there in 6/12/18/24 ........months. it's going nowhere.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.

In the 20s/30s healthy group less than 50% probably will have symptoms. And even half of them being sick is still more than telling everyone to stay at home?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope, but there needs to be a balance not an economic wasteland after a lockdown.

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So just push the economy over a cliff? What outcomes do you think the health service will deliver in a depression style environment. We have seen what it delivers in an age of austerity .

I think that’s when we get the: “we are where we are”, “Anger is not a policy”, “we couldn’t have known it could be this bad”, “we all went a bit crazy (in the boom/lockdown)”, “we all have to make sarcifices”, “water (insert any tax) has to be paid for”, “we did nothing wrong it was Lehman brothers/a global covid depression” etc.

Except in an actual depression you get the breadlines, real mass unemployment, and real survival of the fittest/richest when safety nets are removed.

[Deleted User]

Blueshoe wrote: »

Low risk of dying group still can catch and spread the virus. Imagine an office of young people. They are working away and different individuals become infected and start spreading it around between each other, when they shop, when they are out and about.

You are not solving anything by allowing people who might not die from the virus to go back to work as per normal. You are actually allowing the virus to spread again.

Not a hope in hell of the government risking that.

That's fine. The elderly and at risk people need to be cocooned until there is a vaccine so that the pressure on ICU beds is reduced. The much smaller proportion of young people who will get seriously ill will more likely be within the ICU capacity.

It's tough on the elderly, but it's for their own protection. This is the only way that we get any kind of domestic economy moving again. If we do not, the health service and social services are banjaxed anyway.....which will be worse for these vulnerable groups in the long run

We will get to May and the economy will start to to have more and more influence in the decision making process

[Deleted User]

One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.

Logan Roy

Nermal wrote: »

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

There's something deeply wrong with this fella. As soon as something bad happens he moves on to the next miserable thought.

Nermal wrote: »

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

Truth is, we don't know how many will die if we try a) herd immunity or just b) relax restrictions a bit. We are relying on modelling based on wildly differing figures globally and a bunch of bull**** figures from China.

If you put garbage figures into any statistical modelling calculator, you will get garbage out.

Reality is Nermal, we don't know enough about a virus that we only have experience of for 4 months.