JL555 wrote: » I would like to able to visit my dad's place who lives alone in the countryside but it's about 120km away. Even if it was to drop some groceries outside his porch and give him a quick wave, he's in his 70's. I work from home since early March, have had very little to no contact with anyone outside, but for him, even though he will not say it, it's hard. As far as I'm concerned that is an essential journey. If the 2km restrictions and the cocooning are extended beyond the 5th of May and stretched out to June, there's going to be some severe damage done to many people.
Stateofyou wrote: » Yeah I'm referring to you and yes you did say you were considering it. "I think I might take the risk as not seeing my family or holding them close would kill us both here . We will do as told now and if they say another month we will do that but its very difficult to even contemplate much longer without a deep depression setting in I imagine a lot of my family and friends would feel the same"
Tell me how wrote: » We are still at the point where we are trying to figure out just what the scenario is before leaving it all to a single demographic to make sacrifices while others start returning to normal. If, we get to a point where we have the ability to test rapidly (easy access, quick result) along with very dependable contact tracing and a healthcare system which can manage the Covid-19 patients which comes its way, we might be able to release a lot of the restrictions which are in place in relation to work environments. If, as some suggest, that the true number for those needing hospitalisation (and therefore the mortality rate) is actually much less as a percentage of the total population than we think at this point in time, then that too might support reducing restrictions. If, tests for antibodies can show those who are immune, resistant or post infection then that also might support reducing restrictions. If a vaccine is developed, that would also (at a much slower rate than the above) help with removing restrictions. But, for now, we have too many if's to reduce or remove restrictions but in 3 weeks, we will have more information to either support extended the lockdown, or starting to rollback.
Stateofyou wrote: » Folks - why wouldn't a more extreme lockdown for EVERYONE for just another 3 weeks work really well? Where we take a hard enough hit and stay indoors/personal yard, expand grocery deliveries and Gardaí for enforcement and see where that takes us. How are other countries who are managing well approaching this?
iamwhoiam wrote: » If you are referring to me at no stage did i say I was consider breaking any rule in a month or two . I said in a month or two I would fear for depression setting in I was speaking of preferring to take a risk if cocooned for years as some had suggested
Stateofyou wrote: » It's not bs. What is bs is the hysterics over a few weeks of restrictions, stated intentions to go against gov't requirements and putting your family and health system/people at risk, and refusing to see solutions to challenges. I have not been a part of any of the squabbling here about older/vulnerable people cocooning. To repeat, I have only replied to the one poster who is a grandparent and considering breaking rules in a month or so. It's not okay for that poster, or anyone else. If we can all do our best to get through this and keep to rules and guidelines the safer we'll ALL be and sooner.
niallo27 wrote: » I never said it would be easy, this is a complete ****-show. Of course it will be easier to cocoon the minority rather than the majority. Long term lockdown is not viable so we may have no choice, besides a long term lockdown how would you propose we deal with the more vulnerable in society. Just to be clear in no post have I said all the restrictions should be lifted or no where near all of them.
Sincere Whispering Seaside wrote: » I'm not saying anything - I'm asking you to consider that what you are suggesting is not as easy as you seem to think. Your posts certainly do make it seem like it will be easy. It reads like lifting restrictions while cocooning the vulnerable will be the easiest solution for you, therefore you think it must be the easiest solution for most people. Your posts give no consideration to the significant issues that will need to be addressed for many people.
niallo27 wrote: » Well if they cant get childcare, then one stays at home and minds the kids or a single parent then that parent stays at home. Are you seriously saying hundreds of thousands should stay out of work because some families wont have their parents to mind their kids. I never said this would be easy but we cant just say we all must stay at home.
niallo27 wrote: » This it always could be worse response is bull****, of course things could always be worse, you were paralysed in that car crash but hey it could be worse your only paralysed from the waist down so her up it could be worse. Plus if Anne Frank hid for 2 years or whatever, then why cant the vulnerable hide away for 18 months until a vaccine.
Stateofyou wrote: » Slow your roll there, I didn't in any way shame anyone. I pointed out the risks that poster was considering taking in another month. The risks are the same for that poster as anyone else. Stating the reality of taking risks (anybody) isn't shaming. Reel it in, ffs. We are living, albeit not as we are used to or would like to. What kind of comment is that. Anne Frank and her family hid in an attack in fear of discovery. It could always be worse.
niallo27 wrote: » we cant just say we all must stay at home.
Sincere Whispering Seaside wrote: » You can drop the patronising "you do know" bit (never has a smug phrase been so overused as since the inception of this forum), I don't have children. So you don't have a solution for the many that rely on parents for childcare - we don't have sufficient childcare places to cover the extra children. Most people with elderly in their home are staying home right now. The essential workers I know in that circumstance have sourced alternative accommodation for the moment - that option wouldn't be possible on a wider scale though. Also the risk would be greater than it is now if everyone, rather than just key workers, is moving around.
Jenbach110 wrote: » Attitudes like this are perhaps one of the more demoralising effects of the virus. Its the shaming of the elderly who are petrified to become a burden. I can only say everyone has a right to a life and there is worse things than death itself. Not living is one of them, none of us are living until restrictions are lifted, the elderly included. At what point do the restrictions become a worse fate than Covid itself?
iamwhoiam wrote: » If you lock a whole generation away they will eventually become a burden . Stiffening joints , mental deterioration , lack of freshair for some , lack of stimulation etc etc. And the very same risk of passing it on applies to every age group by the way The elderly are not more likely to carry it , or pass it on , they are more likely to suffer badly from it all right How would you feel if you were out and about and passed it on to a pregnant woman ? Passing it on is not exclusive to the older generation
Deleted User wrote: » But why is June then okay. And not July. Or September. Or Christmas? It seems completely arbitrary now. Either we keep 2km limits and cocooning until there is a vaccine, or we start to relax restrictions from May (keeping working from home for those that can, and as much social distancing as is possible). Don’t see the point in keeping this lockdown until some intermediate date between the two
niallo27 wrote: » Maybe don't use your parents for childcare until there is a vaccine, you do realise there are thousands who don't have this luxury. On your second point, I am not sure who to address the housing issue but it has to be easier than keeping the whole country locked up. How is it working now, are all the elderly living with families now. The people who are still working, how are they isolating from their families right now if they are living with them.
Tell me how wrote: » If you asked me to nominate a world leader right now, it definitely would not be the US. Richest country in the world and they are digging mass graves in NY while the President wondered aloud should they just let it flow through the country.
Tell me how wrote: » Don't entirely disagree. But, If the 2km restrictions and the cocooning are not extended beyond the 5th of May and stretched out to June, and this continues to be a highly infectious and debilitating illness which is hard to identify before several more may have been infected, many will die.
niallo27 wrote: » Good post, I cant disagree with anything there but is anything there achievable in the next 3 months.
Blueshoe wrote: » Some of the best minds on the planet work in American research institutions and for organisations such as the CDC. When push comes to shove it may end up that China infected us but America will save us. People would do well to remember which country they would really prefer as world leader.
OMM 0000 wrote: » Why do you keep relating things to Trump and then complaining about him? Are you OK?
Tell me how wrote: » Because, the US is a world leader in influencing opinion and also because his behavior is of such a magnitude that it is literally history in the making and so is of interest to a great number of people.
Sincere Whispering Seaside wrote: » And what is your solution for the issues raised about safely cocooning the elderly while everyone else has restrictions lifted? That's what you are suggesting, so how would you go about addressing problems of childcare and housing?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fff0266694b4ce596073affca9dffe28.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
