El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Well, what I’ve said (quite a few times so I’m surprised you have misrepresented my position) is that they need to keep transmissions as close to health service capacity as possible without exceeding capacity. I doubt the health service could cope with the acute cases from those 120,000 daily cases so that’s not what I’m suggesting at all.
Murple wrote: » How exactly could schools reopen 'while maintaining social distancing'? You can have one but not both. Just think within a family- could you keep even two children at least 2 metres apart all the time and stay 2 metres away from them and still care for them effectively and help them with whatever they needed?
khalessi wrote: » ... He has also hinted that the restrcitions will be relaxed and incresed based on the numbers as he doesnt want hospitals overwhelmed like NY.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I mean, this is exactly what I’ve been saying. Keep transmission rates close to health service capacity without exceeding capacity. That’s the balance of the quickest and safest way to herd immunity. It will probably take a year or maybe longer. And a vaccine will take at least that long at best and might never actually come.The only sensible solution is the one we’re taking. Achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible without exceeding the health service’ ability to deal with acute cases.
khalessi wrote: » I have said similar as in they want to aintain reproduction rate below 1% while reopening Ireland. THey will not open schools ad hoc as per your her immunity plan as one death of a child would swiftly put paid to that. And the argument that it only affects older people is rubbish, children have got it and been very sick, I have 3 nices of varying ages recovering and there are newborn babies with COvid so they will not be stupid enough to open schools to use them to spread it as per your suggestion. Schools will reopen slowly. Yes it will be a race between vaccine or heard immunity but schools will not be the vessel of transmission as they willbe the last to reopen. it will be small steps first.
khalessi wrote: » Yes but your argument is schools as transmittors and they wont be that stupid or obvious.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Lots of people will die, mostly vulnerable people which will be mostly older people but will include some children. It remains to be seen whether they will use schools to mange transmission rates. It would be as good a way to manage rates as a lot of others. You seem to acknowledge that we’re aiming for herd immunity but also not acknowledging that we need to manage transmission rates to achieve it. How do you think they’ll achieve herd immunity?
khalessi wrote: » I have said all along reproduction rate of infection needs to be kept below 1% therefore schools will not be the mode of transmission for your herd immunity plan. I also think if this was the plan they would just have reopened schools after Easter as hospitals are not overwhelmed. I do not think herd immunity is the way to go as shown by the US and Britain for example both have backtracked and rapidly.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » 1. How will they do it? 2. How do you think they ought to do it that wouldn’t be as stupid or obvious?
khalessi wrote: » Simon Harris has said social distancing is going to be with us for a long time yet and that the present restrictions will be tweaked and closely observed, which does not read as total relaxation. I think they will take softly softly approach reopening smaller businesses for example and watching the effect on the numbers. If that is ok another step of opening less essential places such as coffess shops. If numbers increase, tighter restrictions. It wil alll be done slowly and gently and schools will not be reopened until he is confident people wont die, he more or less said as much today, it was 57 minutes long he spoke for.
khalessi wrote: » Simon Harris has said social distancing is going to be with us for a long time yet and that the present restrictions will be tweaked and closely observed, which does not read as total relaxation.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » I am just amused that Harris thinks the daily no of cases is going to start falling by may. April twelfth has come and gone if we don't see a fall soon well then lockdown isn't enough to reduce the spread its just slowing it. That means restrictions cannot lift.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ok. I presume you mean the numbers at kept below the health service ability to deal with them. So exactly what I’m talking about. Keep transmissions below the health service capacity. Whether they use schools to achieve it or not remains to be seen. We’ll achieve herd immunity by hook or by crook. It’s just about balancing keeping transmissions high without overwhelming the health service.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Well, the daily cases are levelling off, presumably as a result of the lockdown. The next couple of weeks will be interesting to see what happens and if the numbers fall too low, which methods will they use to raise them again.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » You won't be able to with lockdown alone. Lockdown alone won't balance this in our favor for much longer.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » They are not. And they are not adding in the German figures.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Not questioning your level of education, just your level of realism about what’s actually happening In front of us. We are aiming for herd immunity. Whether we achieve it through a vaccine or through at least 2/3 of the population getting the disease is just a matter of how long each approach would take. If you think we’re trying to keep transmissions as close to zero as possible then you’re not being realistic about what’s happening in front of us. Lifting ANY restrictions would increase transmissions and schools would be one way to achieve that if the transmission numbers get too low.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Why do you think that?
Yosef Stocky Backspace wrote: » What I see in front of me is a lock down of unprecedented scale with suggestions it might be lifted in a few weeks maybe, no guarantees. I see a Health Minister stating social distancing will remain until there is a vaccine - not until herd immunity via transmission. And I see chair of the NPHET modelling group Professor Philip Nolan stating "we need to think carefully about the things we can get back to doing in a way that does not spread the virus" and "the aim is to suppress it as much as possible. We are seeing a day-on-day reduction in the growth of the epidemic. The growth in cases is slowing down but, frankly, that number needs to be zero" and "We’re not going back, it’s best not to think about lifting the restrictions, it’s best to think about finding a new way to live that interrupts the spread of the virus". That does not really tally with what you seem to be seeing about keeping transmission going to a level just within ICU capacity. That looks a lot more like suppression to me. Where are you seeing plan leading towards herd immunity through transmission?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Lockdown hasn’t stopped the spread. The virus has spread pretty steadily during the lockdown. So it’s clear that we can’t eliminate the virus by reducing transmissions to zero. The ideal scenario would be, as you said, to find a new way to live that minimises there transmission but maximises the ability to get back to work. Getting back to work will obviously increase transmission. So the only logical thing to do is to try to keep transmissions to a level that is below ICU capacity. So the balance they need to achieve is: maximum economic activity with transmission rate below ICU capacity. They can also act to increase ICU capacity which will in turn increase economic capacity. The sooner we achieve herd immunity the sooner we can return to some level of normality. But that’s at least a year or two away.
GT89 wrote: » The lockdown strategy is not to protect people. If the government wanted ro protect people they would tell people to buy a month's worth of food and medication and stay indoors for the month with everything closed and people not allowed to leave their homes unless a healthcare worker. Under this strategy the population is being put under the same amount of risk as they would under the herd immunity strategy only difference is the healthcare system won't come under the same pressure and there would be less of a chance of civil unrest in the short. But ultimately the result under lockdown or using herd immunity will be the same in terms of death toll. Only difference is the death toll will be prolonged over a longer period of time whereas with herd immunity the death toll will be all at once. It would be more of a sudden shock to the system. The strategy in use is just dragging it out. If we used herd immunity the death toll would soar in a couple of days/weeks then the virus will runs its course as those who get it bad will die off quickly in a huge number and those who get it milder will shake it off fairly quick. This is prolonging the inevitable.
6 wrote: » Eh, no. If we did nothing the death toll would be far far higher. Why? The health system would be overwhelmed quickly and a lot of people requiring specialist ventilators or treatment in hospital wouldn't have a bed. Therefore people would just die at home. Keeping specialist beds from maxing out means more people get treatment and survive it.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » But its still just letting it wash over the population.
trapp wrote: » Whether he is right or wrong is not relevant. That man had no right to make a comment like that on national television. He is not in an elected position of power and only someone in government could decide something like that. He is an academic and in no way should he be allowed to dictate national policy in such a way on televison. I found it absolutely outrageous.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
