hmmm wrote: » These restrictions should only exist as long as they are medically required, and need to balance the economic impact. Some people seem to think that the restrictions are inherently good in themselves, and are outdoing each other to pile on more and more restrictions. I appreciate at the moment the scientists are working to understand more about the virus, and there's a lot we don't know. If it was the case (as perhaps seems likely) that there is minimal chance of viruses being passed on outdoors, then most construction sites should open. If (as seems the case) that it spreads like wildfire indoors in cramped places, Churches, Pubs etc will need to stay closed. Similarly it seems likely that anyone who can work from home should be told to do so, with people strongly discouraged from taking public transport. On the other hand, a manufacturing or food plant with adequate space and ventilation should be able to open. Most retail shops should be able to open if they limit the number of customers inside. The country and the people involved in these businesses need to know whether they can get back to work. There's nothing nice for most people about lying on the couch not working - people don't have the luxury of nice public-sector guaranteed jobs, they need to get back to work to provide for their families future.
Jenbach110 wrote: » I was using absolute figues. The poster suggested Italy was 10% more popultated in the over 65 range.
STB. wrote: » Refusing to accept the numbers now. Did you see the recovery figure in there. Its very low isn't it. Why do you think that is ? Clearly you haven't a breeze whats going on. Don't respond to me again please.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I would imagine the poster's point was probably to do with mortality rate rather than comparison of absolute numbers.
Jenbach110 wrote: » Kiki Im wrong. I dont know what Ive done. Could you show me how it works?
STB. wrote: » Do you understand difference in ICU capacity between countries ? Our ICU capacity is what Lombardy's was at the start of their cases.
Jenbach110 wrote: » I was using absolute figues. The poster suggested Italy was 10% more popultated in the over 65 range. Its actually 23 times more populated, or 2300% more populated. Essentially multiples times more vunerable. So a petty argument started where Ive forgotten my point but it was where a poster suggested we will see similar death stats to Italy. My point was we dont have the number's to see anything like that.
growleaves wrote: » I wasn't making an analogy between a war and a virus. Another posted mentioned the Blitz and I wanted to talk about it because it was a situation which illustrates, as I said, that "saving lives" is not an over-riding priority in each and every situation. There is also quality of life and the human spirit and the fact that these things cannot be expressed in statistical terms or don't come under the purview of scientific experts does not mean that they can, or will, be considered totally null for all time. Again, I'm thinking moreso of the long term. There was an item in a UK newspaper the other day where some expert called for restrictions for the next four years.
STB. wrote: » We already are. They have 919 deaths out of 10,948 cases. That's a huge death rate of 8%. They have another 900 in serious or critical condition at the moment. They haven't a clue whats out there because they have not been testing. They also haven't a clue what they are doing as their chief epidemiologist is advocating herd immunity of which their is no proof, a program that would require a vacine which is not available. Half of Stockholm are working from home anyway and social distancing.
ixoy wrote: » They're absolute figures there, not percentages... The 13% vs 23% is actually the important percentage figure here.
Elmer Blooker wrote: » By 1919 the virus had run its course and had mutated to become less lethal so the restrictions after the war ended didn't really change anything.This virus will run its course too just like that 'aussie' flu in the winter of 2017-18 did.
GazzaL wrote: » In terms of actual numbers of people. 23% of 60.36m is approx. 20 times more people than 13% of 4.9m. We need to get the young, fit and healthy people back to work in a safe manner. We also need to protect the elderly and vulnerable, particular in nursing home settings, which as evidenced in Ireland, Italy, Spain, France and Belgium, 42-57% of deaths from the virus appear to have occured in nursing homes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...om-eu-suggests Whatever PPE needed to work there, even if that means full hazmat suits, and whatever cleaning/hygiene products required also. Similarly, social distancing and extra precautions, and financial support, will be required for elderly and vulnerable people, people with underlying health conditions.
easypazz wrote: » I know we don't have 10247 active cases. And so do you.
alwald wrote: » So restrictions were placed in 1919 but it wasn't too late as it saved millions of lives. Glad to see you back tracking from your first reply and acknowledge that restrictions back then were seen as the only way to solve the problem and they worked.
What's the link between a war and a virus? You fight an enemy during the war but you avoid a virus during a pandemic. Your analogy is idiotic.
Jenbach110 wrote: » Kiki you have an unbelievable inability to understand percentages. 15m vs 637k Its 23 times more popultated
KiKi III wrote: » 23% of Italy’s population is over 65 https://www.statista.com/statistics/785104/elderly-population-in-italy/ 13% of Ireland’s population is over 65https://www.statista.com/statistics/376908/age-structure-in-ireland/ So I don’t know where you got the idea that Italy has 20 times more old people. The difference is 10%
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I'll ask again. You must have missed it the first time. When do you want restrictions lifted? Which restrictions?
KiKi III wrote: » I’m embarrassed for you. You have this so, so wrong and you’re so confident. Morto.
s1ippy wrote: » While I understand that people want to get back to normality, the level at which people want to risk their lives in here is incredible. You know you're not just going to resume your old life? You're eventually going to be slaving dawn to dusk again, but without even the "perk" of being able to do the things you enjoy. What on earth is the rush? Do you hate your life so much, is work your only fulfillment?
Captain_Crash wrote: » Is it not a fair question tho? Don’t the HSE guidelines say if you get covid you self isolate for 14 days? I’d presume there is a buffer put in place with regards to how quickly it takes to pass trough your system so it’s safe to say 14 days after a positive test your all good again! So if we had 5000 cases two weeks ago, they should all be better now no? (I think I read that from the time symptoms show it’s gone in an ave of 7 days)
growleaves wrote: » Hiding in air raid shelters all of the time would have hurt morale too much while WWII was ongoing so it wasn't even considered.
Jenbach110 wrote: » Kiki you have an unbelive inability to understand percentages. 15m vs 600k
Jenbach110 wrote: » 15million of Italians are over 65 600,000 are over 65 here
s1ippy wrote: » Well there you go, you've just indicated to me that your life has no joy. That is depressing. Why don't you try and use this time to develop interests and hobbies you can become passionate about? Or just have a lot of sex? Anything except fling yourself into the path of harms way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoCSeIY0xdo "You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful to make this life a wonderful adventure." Even with the lockdown, the greatest limitations on your happiness is created by your own perception.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
