[Deleted User] wrote: » That is for the politicians and the doctors to decide. But they will determine an acceptable number. That is just the hard truth of it
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Oh and you still can't leave your house in Spain for people who think it's getting much better there, only to shops and pharmacy, compared to there it's like there's no lockdown here at all
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Ah, were going for the condescending line instead of debate. Last resource as they say. There are world health organisations that are doing it for other reasons than money
easypazz wrote: » Because it will begin on May 5th, everybody else is easing restrictions, or talking about when it will start. We will be no different.
citysights wrote: » That has to be a misprint.
Cyrus wrote: » because the longer we lock down, the more damage we do to our own economy, why can people get their heads around this?
bladespin wrote: » Not really, they're outliers because it's unusual for this to be fatal to younger people without underlying conditions.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » They will start lifting restrictions eventually. Whether we do it now or in 2 months won't stop the global depression, why can't people get their heads around this?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Ok, so when we open up we see an overwhelming surge... How many deaths are acceptable? 500 a day? 1,000 a day? Where is the line until everything is shut down again? There is a lot of denial around the seriousness of the situation and the trap the world finds itself in without a vaccine. Some don't seem to link the mitigation with the results. Remove the constraints and that curve won't look so flat!
bladespin wrote: » Edit.BTW Gates isn't funding the foundation to make money.
niallo27 wrote: » 1000 dead a day, why would we possibly have that. Italy with 13 times our population peaked at this number.
Paddygreen wrote: » Bill saw exactly this scenario unfolding before it happened, the man has amazing foresight. Hopefully the vaccine being spearheaded by Bill and his esteemed associates will be made compulsory. I never thought I would say this as an atheist but Bill is God to me.
Idbatterim wrote: » lads why the concern, the irish governments have done such a fantastic job over the past few decades, why would any one dare question them now?
GT89 wrote: » Could they make certain places in the long run exempt from having social distancing where it's just not practical to have it. Public transport for example when people start going back to work and school it would be very difficult to practice social distancing on a bus for example even if it wasn't full ok it can work at the moment with so few travelling. Supermarkets aswell in the long run no one wants to queue for an hour just to do shopping espeicially if they're under time pressure. Social distancing could just be applied to places like offices by staggering work days, restaurants, cinemas, ahopping centres etc. The risk would still be reduced to a manageable as people wouldn't be congregating to same extent as they were eg. no more big concerts, football matches, nightclubs etc. and less people in workplaces like offices.
KrustyUCC wrote: » Good man paddy I needed a bit of a laugh today
spacetweek wrote: » Dunno why you're laughing, he's right. The virus doesn't care about silly political tribalism.
ZX7R wrote: » IMF stated a global economy will contract by 3% this year but see a quick rebound in the first quarter of 2021 with grouth of 5•8% Yes it's the biggest global economy restriction since the great depression. But even the IMF are calling it a recession not a depression . .
Tenzor07 wrote: » It seems we're stuck with ongoing restrictions indefinitely, high unemployment and low economic activity with the tourism and travel industries a shadow of their former selves, food production, road/rail/ship transport also employing far less numbers than before.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Indeed they will and when it reaches 75 deaths a day everything will be shut down in terror not just by a scared government but a scared public who will be even more risk averse.
ixoy wrote: » Indefinitely? So you're assuming there's going to be no vaccine, no ways to mitigate against this for years? This is something that's affecting billions and, for better or worse, it's hitting the richer countries this time so there's a lot of incentive to find a solution.
Diarmuid wrote: » How's the AIDS vaccine coming along?
ixoy wrote: » Different type of disease and different means of transmission. It can also be treated much more readily now.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » According to Harris social distancing will be a part of daily life until a vaccine is found.
