Hmmzis wrote: » Exactly. The most we can do is keep the hospitals and ICUs from being overloaded. Barring a useful treatment regime/drugs, it'll be a balancing act.
VinLieger wrote: » Most creches already only have groups of 10 - 15 max due to how many carers are required. Making these even smaller would be impossible because the facilities for each group could not be divided in a way that would work.
trapp wrote: » Alternative is schools closed for another year or two. Educators are going to have to think outside the box. Staggered timetables with each child attending school for 1 day per week perhaps which will give more focus to work at home on the other days. Forget the staffroom. Eat lunch on your own. Hardly an insurmountable issue.
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » How long are you prepared to wait and after that period in time how do you see the economy functioning. I personally know a lot of SME's that will not financially survive another 4 weeks of this. The aftermath of this long lockdown could make Corona Virus look like childs play.
trapp wrote: » Exactly festivals, big matches and so on are not safe for now. We need to look at what's essential first. .
trapp wrote: » Exactly festivals, big matches and so on are not safe for now. We need to look at what's essential first. If schools are essential is the question? If they are then educators need to spend the next few months finding suitable arrangements that are not all focused on online learning, particularly at primary level and look to reopen in January 2021 and work through the summer next year.
Xertz wrote: » I am actually finding the guidance on big festivals VERY lacking at the moment. I would far rather the Government put out a blanket request to just reschedule / postpone them until at least after September. I'm aware of a few festivals that have yet to cancel as they're just not clear on what's happening. It's not out of some kind of profit motive or something, but rather that they just have not been given clear guidance and are being very optimistic. The downside of that is that you will get community groups, promoters, sports bodies and others stringing things out until the last minute which can create big financial problems for them and also just a lot of unrealistic expectations and lack of planning. I'd far rather see some of these things finding alternative ways of doing things safely or putting effort into getting ready for 2021.
Cupatae wrote: » They banned gatherings, so = No Festivals.
History Queen wrote: » True re the lunch part, not so much the access to IT, but again, that could be done without it isn't that long ago teachers only had textbooks. Staff separation is probably the easiest issue to overcome. Shared classrooms may also bean issue. But again, some put of the box thinking will find a solution. Regarding students coming to school one day a week, I think that's an interesting suggestion. Who decides what subjects they go to? We have 9 classes a day. Ordinarily I see my first year english class 5 times a week. There's 28 in the class. Would all 28 come to me once or would we split the class in to 5 separate groups so I only see 5/6 per day and teach the same material 5 times? One online session would be more efficient. What about options subjects where they only see them 3 days a week? How would staggered timetables work there? Teachers usually teach different levels and subjects so timetabling could be an issue to allow equal access to the curriculum to all. As well as the cpre timetable would we be able to allow access tothe otherservicestheschool provides that our vulnerable students are missing out on? Counselling/student support/ resource/learning support/SNA access. I would argue that these supports need to be put in place first as these are the supports that are either the most difficult completely impossible to provide remotely. I'm not saying your ideas are not without merit. I'm just pointing out that schools are problematic because how we ran then up to now isn't conducive to social distancing. Obviously if we want to reopen them the way we do things will have to change. I agree completely with you on that point. It'll take someone much more creative than me to come up with solutions.
trapp wrote: » Exactly, schools completely not set up currently for social distancing but while schools are closed there is now time to consider how to work best and aim to reopen in January. I don't think it would be a one size fits all solution, measures will have to be adapted to each school and would vary between primary and secondary. There might have to be an element of online learning but, particularly at primary level and for practical subjects in secondary classroom will be needed too. It will be hugely problamatic and difficult but there is time there to organise it. The alternative is closed for 2 or 3 years.
Cupatae wrote: » A few posts ago you were "everyone or no one" now its grand to cancel concerts,matches ect alot of people work in those industries aswell.
Cupatae wrote: » The problem with the "lets go back to normal instantly!" brigade is they dont see it ll make the whole lockdown pointless. Everyone is roaring to go back to normal, but no one has a concrete way on how to do it..any sane person would take normality back, but most understand that right now its not realistic Plus we need to have some sort of control of the first wave, in order to contain other outbreaks.
History Queen wrote: » God I really hope you're wrong about having to wait til January to reopen. Maybe we'll get lucky and something drastic will change in the coming weeks and months meaning some semblance of normality can be returned to. Surely with all of our restrictions things will begin to ease. I certainly hope so.
trapp wrote: » Everybody counts within reason. Of course it's completely unsafe to have a big concert taking place. But it might be possible to gradually reduce the restrictions in place over time, allow children go back to school, allow small gatherings etc. All in time.
alwald wrote: » The point is to survive, protect and help the nation/society go through these tough and unprecedented events. Wanting normality without the virus is a wish just like wishing to win the Euromillion. Accepting life with the virus as well as the unknown next steps, which will be based on data/figures/"new normality", is like playing the Euromillion knowing that there is 1 chance out of X to win...it's reality VS fantasy/dream.
the kelt wrote: » You see this sensationalist rhetoric is part of the problem. Basically saying the odds of getting back to normality is akin to the odds of winning the euro millions when that isn't the case. And again even if it was, theres absolutely nothing wrong with wanting that. Nothing at all.
alwald wrote: » This is from RTE: The Minister for Health has said that the more progress that is made over the next three weeks, the more likely it is that Government can begin to tweak some of the restrictions that are currently in place. He said that social distancing is going to remain a "very big part of life", until an effective treatment or vaccine can be found. The part in bold is quite interesting as to what we can expect in the near future.
Deleted User wrote: » No one is saying we should go back to normal in May. No one. It is just a strawman that you and others keep throwing out What I and many others do expect in May is a broad outline of a roadmap of how we start to get back to some kind of normality. Which industries open first. When the 2km restriction gets withdrawn (which probably goes hand in hand with retail starting to open up) etc. A setting of realistic expectations should also mean that people will do what is being asked of them. You only have to read this thread to see that if there is a further lockdown after May, with no beginnings of a relaxation, then there will be widespread disobedience, which will probably be worse for the spread of the virus than a good level of adherence to a slightly relaxed set of rules It will be especially dangerous for vulnerable and elderly people, for sure. And ICU admittance will rise. But as long as this is within ICU capacity, then it is part of the re-opening balancing act. Which might involve such vulnerable people being subject to other measures to try to protect them
alwald wrote: » Make of my post what you want but I don't make C-19 decisions based on dreams/wishes but rather reality and scientific advice. End of this point for me.
Xertz wrote: » It's actually something that we forget was a bit part of life in the old days too. If you consider some of the stuffiness of older generations, a lot of that may well have come from the pre-vaccine / pre-antibiotic era when polio (a virus) and TB (a bacterial infection) ran riot through the population causing massive numbers of deaths and disabilities. A lot of our our early 20th century social housing drives, the clearing of slums and also the general push towards 'garden city suburbs' i.e. individual houses and green spaces, was also directly linked to measure around what amounted to clean living / social distancing type public hygiene measures. These things were part of life until the 1950s/60s.
Xertz wrote: » It's actually something that we forget was a bit part of life in the old days too. If you consider some of the stuffiness of older generations i.e. not hugging / not kissing / stand offishness about physical contact generally, a lot of that may well have come from the pre-vaccine / pre-antibiotic era when polio (a virus) and TB (a bacterial infection) ran riot through the population causing massive numbers of deaths and disabilities. Have a look back at the 1918 flu for example, and you'll see the precautions were not all that different to what we're doing today and the polio and TB measures were very similar. A lot of our our early 20th century social housing drives, the clearing of slums and also the general push towards 'garden city suburbs' i.e. individual houses and green spaces, was also directly linked to measure around what amounted to clean living / social distancing type public hygiene measures. These things were part of life until the 1950s/60s.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Nobody is asking you or anybody else make decisions on wanting something . I want normality , I know I can’t have it but I still want it
Cupatae wrote: » Very good points infairness, i think our biggest Achilles heel is how connected the world is now a days, with travel so readily available to everyone as we have all seen a virus can cross the globe at the drop of a hat.
Xertz wrote: » Travel certainly sped it up, but when you look at how widespread and rapid the 1918 flu was, without mass aviation being available, it still was extremely high impact.
Lord Trollington wrote: » There is anecdotal evidence of scores and scores of people throughout the country being referred for testing by their GP only to never having a test carried out .There was a backlog of 40,000+ people awaiting tests and they changed the testing requirements . This isnt chatter on boards. This is fact. We have no grasp on the true number of cases in the country currently . We wont have a true grasp on how many have had it and are now immune until there is a test for that also. These figures needing to be as accurate as possible will help us in fighting this thing without a vaccine available . Its not boards chatter.
Cupatae wrote: » Yeah we know you do, saying it over and over again isnt gonna get you it, we all want normal but its tough **** at the min.
iamwhoiam wrote: » God , i said it twice in reply to another poster . No need to be snarky . I know its bloody tough, and its not any easier when people are narky
alwald wrote: » Well don't be snarky yourself then asking me not to make my own decisions on C-19.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
