Relaxation of restrictions

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

T
It's the number of active cases that is important not the death rate. The death rate might be declining while the virus spreads and accelerates, but it'll be two weeks before we notice.

That is incorrect.

The number of active cases can only be meaningful if you know the real number, which we do not. We have no clue currently of the real numbers, and until we can carry out random testing on the population (such as the did in Austria) then we cannot even attempt to extrapolate that.

The only real meaningful metric at the moment (along with ICU occupancy) is the trend in deaths per day, assuming that this is at least being reported and tracked correctly.

The current conditions will not be lifted until the trend turns negative.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The attitude is somewhat submissive and a little niave. Also, you don't appear to be as well informed as you think you are if you just want to blindly follow the opinions of someone else.
.

I’m not *blindly* following anyone. I am choosing, with my eyes wide open, to defer to experts.

When you go to the dentist, do you tell him/ her how to do their job?

I think it’s exceptionally arrogant of some on here to think they know better than people who have spent their whole lives in these fields.

Downlinz

seamus wrote: »

This is all rhetoric in reality. Meaningless appeals to sentiment.

The fact is that there is a limit to which we can push this. A point at which people will have had enough.
And all the bland statements in the world about saving lives cannot maintain it.

There are many reasons, practical, social and financial, why this current state of lockdown cannot continue in the medium-term.

That's even if people were willing to stick with it. Are people willing to stick with it for 12 months? 6 months? 3 months?

The main reason it cannot continue is because it will not. Because people are people, fatigue will set in, and people will start agreeing, collectively but unconsciously, to let their guard down and ignore the restrictions. Bit by bit, little by little, until the Gardai are spending their days breaking up groups of people who will just congregate again five minutes after the Guards leave.

It's not a case of whether we have to relax the restrictions, but when and in what order.

I personally feel that we are pushing the limit right now. What is currently a broad state of acceptance and understanding, is starting to fray. If Leo was to turn around on 1st May and say that we needed another 3 weeks of this, anger and frustration would begin to supplant our solidarity. Compliance would start to drop. Criticism of the government response would ramp up massively - especially when other countries are lifting their restrictions.

And the last thing we want is for the lockdown to collapse chaotically. Whatever chance we had of managing fatalities long-term is lost.

So if concern for family and friends is at the forefront of your mind, then you should be looking to the government for an exit plan. For a reasonable expectation of what to expect over the next 1,3,6,12 months. Because looking for indefinite continuation of the lockdown, is looking for disaster.

The situation is a disaster, it's a pandemic. Those are the kind of feelings of worry and stress you should be feeling from the greatest challenge our species has faced since the 2nd world war.

You're blaming the lockdown for those feelings but it's really the virus as the cause. Thinking the grass is greener from a different strategy is understandable but all available medical evidence and attempts from other countries suggests otherwise.

I'm not worried about Gardai personally since they have powers of arrest to deal with those kinds of people and believe the vast majority in the community will support them in that.

BanditLuke

paw patrol wrote: »

what do you mean by "lockdown"?
The current measures are unworkable for that long. The 2km nonsense will need to go or people will eventually ignore it.

Restrictions and guidelines are useless unless people abide by them.

I've no problem with some restrictions but the current ones are too draconian and I've a life to live as I assume others do.

I won't be obeying the restrictions after 5th may - if they remain as is.

Then you will be putting peoples lives at risk. Support the HSE.

KiKi III wrote: »

Per your corrections, 15,000 deaths and 1,500 of them in young people over the next two years.

Not as dramatic as my original miscalculation but still certainly not acceptable in a country the size of ours.

Since you raised it, what would be an acceptable number of deaths in Ireland?

Hooked

The way I see it... And I'm just an ordinary Joe...

This is gonna be around for a while yet. So, start a proper push on educating people that 'physical distancing', 2m lines at shops, PPE gear for shoppers and staff and the general hand-hygiene are going to be a way of life for us all.

The smaller "interactions" should be first to be relaxed. Let people live their lives. Let us move about a bit.. in our "household" groups. But - raise awareness that physical contact outside of these groups are the big issue. After all, it's all about contact tracing and the rate of infection - if and when it sparks up again.

People need to learn to prepare for everyday stuff better. Limit all your 'old' interactions. Shop ONCE, for the week. FILL the car up with fuel, once. Take a lunch to work. Only shop for hardware/clothes/etc WHEN you need to. Avail of click and collect everywhere you can. Work from home. etc...

I think we could open up everything bar the sporting events, gigs, pubs and air-travel with positive, pro-active approaches. IF people behaved appropriately. The larger group approach is going to be the tricky/complicated stuff.

I mean... if I wanted to hit a campsite this weekend - if they were open I mean, I could pay in advance/online. Stock up on goods as part of my weekly shop. I'd encounter no physical contact outside my immediate "family" group, and have as much risk of contracting the virus than if I sat at home all weekend.

But... I'd be much MUCH better off, in terms of my mental health!

And that's just 'one' such example.

There has to be a balance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

KiKi III wrote: »

Per your corrections, 15,000 deaths and 1,500 of them in young people over the next two years.

Not as dramatic as my original miscalculation but still certainly not acceptable in a country the size of ours.

What is your alternative?

khalessi

paw patrol wrote: »

what do you mean by "lockdown"?
The current measures are unworkable for that long. The 2km nonsense will need to go or people will eventually ignore it.

Restrictions and guidelines are useless unless people abide by them.

I've no problem with some restrictions but the current ones are too draconian and I've a life to live as I assume others do.

I won't be obeying the restrictions after 5th may - if they remain as is.

We all have lives to live and would like to be doing so by at Christmas and the likes of your last statement is the issue. Dont obey but remember the numbers you could infect as you live your life

KiKi III wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. As I said a few pages ago, I don't find it helpful to ruminate on "What if this happens on May 5?" or "What if that happens?"

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I'm cautiously optimistic we'll see some restrictions lifted, though I don't know which ones, so I'm going to continue adopting a wait-and-see approach.

I know people are craving certainty at the moment but it's impossible to provide that right now so I think the attitude I'm adopting is the most sensible one.

The attitude is somewhat submissive and a little niave. Also, you don't appear to be as well informed as you think you are if you just want to blindly follow the opinions of someone else.

skallywag wrote: »

The daily death rate needs to either plateau or better significantly drop for starters. I can only assume that you are aware that it is currently actually heading North?

It's the number af active cases that is important not the death rate. The death rate might be declining while the virus spreads and accelerates, but it'll be two weeks before we notice.

But again: question to both of you: How long is too long? Are you willing to accept indefinitel lockdown for six-nine months to one year if it came to that? Do you think it woudl save lives or put move lives in danger?

Per your corrections, 15,000 deaths and 1,500 of them in young people over the next two years.

Not as dramatic as my original miscalculation but still certainly not acceptable in a country the size of ours.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As many people have pointed out, this would be extremely difficult to implement in practice. Huge numbers of elderly and other vulnerable living with low-vulnerability family members. Do you think it's possible for these people to 'self-isolate' within the family home for a prolonged period?

No I don't. Vulnerable people who can't cocoon would be more likely to get it and more likely to experience acute symptoms and more likely to die - similar to how they are right now if they're living with family or can't cocoon for whatever reason.

paw patrol

khalessi wrote: »

I would not be surprised if lockdown was extended to encompass the June bank holiday weekend

what do you mean by "lockdown"?
The current measures are unworkable for that long. The 2km nonsense will need to go or people will eventually ignore it.

Restrictions and guidelines are useless unless people abide by them.

I've no problem with some restrictions but the current ones are too draconian and I've a life to live as I assume others do.

I won't be obeying the restrictions after 5th may - if they remain as is.

Spencer Brown wrote: »

3,000,000 x 0.005 = 15,000

Thanks. Shouldn’t do mental maths, I’m notoriously bad at it.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As many people have pointed out, this would be extremely difficult to implement in practice. Huge numbers of elderly and other vulnerable living with low-vulnerability family members. Do you think it's possible for these people to 'self-isolate' within the family home for a prolonged period?

It's hard, but it's better than what we are doing now, provided we've to do what we are doing now long term.

Spencer Brown

KiKi III wrote: »

Looks right to me but I’ll admit it’s not my strongpoint - what’s wrong as you see it?

3,000,000 x 0.005 = 15,000

seamus

Downlinz wrote: »

This is a problem everyone has to deal with and nobody is dismissing the challenge involved. However, anyone with concerns for friends and family at the forefront should hold the desire to maintain distance to keep them safe and respect the lockdown as a measure enforcing this.

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Very few would deny this is the case. Unfortunately the virus doesn`t give a **** about any of that.

This is all rhetoric in reality. Meaningless appeals to sentiment.

The fact is that there is a limit to which we can push this. A point at which people will have had enough.
And all the bland statements in the world about saving lives cannot maintain it.

There are many reasons, practical, social and financial, why this current state of lockdown cannot continue in the medium-term.

That's even if people were willing to stick with it. Are people willing to stick with it for 12 months? 6 months? 3 months?

The main reason it cannot continue is because it will not. Because people are people, fatigue will set in, and people will start agreeing, collectively but unconsciously, to let their guard down and ignore the restrictions. Bit by bit, little by little, until the Gardai are spending their days breaking up groups of people who will just congregate again five minutes after the Guards leave.

It's not a case of whether we have to relax the restrictions, but when and in what order.

I personally feel that we are pushing the limit right now. What is currently a broad state of acceptance and understanding, is starting to fray. If Leo was to turn around on 1st May and say that we needed another 3 weeks of this, anger and frustration would begin to supplant our solidarity. Compliance would start to drop. Criticism of the government response would ramp up massively - especially when other countries are lifting their restrictions.

And the last thing we want is for the lockdown to collapse chaotically. Whatever chance we had of managing fatalities long-term is lost.

So if concern for family and friends is at the forefront of your mind, then you should be looking to the government for an exit plan. For a reasonable expectation of what to expect over the next 1,3,6,12 months. Because looking for indefinite continuation of the lockdown, is looking for disaster.

KiKi III wrote: »

Looks right to me but I’ll admit it’s not my strongpoint - what’s wrong as you see it?

0.5% mortality rate gives 15000 deaths not 150,000.

Loafing Oaf

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Obviously the vulnerable people will need to be cocooned until herd Immunity is achieved.

As many people have pointed out, this would be extremely difficult to implement in practice. Huge numbers of elderly and other vulnerable living with low-vulnerability family members. Do you think it's possible for these people to 'self-isolate' within the family home for a prolonged period?

KiKi III wrote: »

Looks right to me but I’ll admit it’s not my strongpoint - what’s wrong as you see it?

It is wrong by a factor of 10!

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Check your maths

Looks right to me but I’ll admit it’s not my strongpoint - what’s wrong as you see it?

KiKi III wrote: »

Our hospitals are under pressure with the current 10,000 cases.

You're proposing 3 million cases over the next two years. At the most optimistic mortality rate of 0.5% that's 150,000 deaths, 15,000 of them in people under 65 plus a devastated health system

Yes. That's what I'm saying (maths and optimistic death rate not withstand). This is a disease which kills people. We all know that. And actually looking at the numbers is uncomfortable, but that's what it will take to achieve herd Immunity and get back to some kind of normality.

The only thing I'd say is that the vulnerable will need to stay cocooned for that period. So they should be less likely to be the ones infected than the people who are more likely to fight it successfully. So I'd expect certain restrictions to be relaxed but cocooning of vulnerable people to expand.

I get that you don't think that's what we're going to do. What do you think we're going to do?

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Check your maths

Ah, it is only out by one order of magnitude :pac:

@KiKi, you are not working in statistics for the HSE I hope?

yosemitesam1

KiKi III wrote: »

Our hospitals are under pressure with the current 10,000 cases.

You're proposing 3 million cases over the next two years. At the most optimistic mortality rate of 0.5% that's 150,000 deaths, 15,000 of them in people under 65 plus a devastated health system

Check your maths

Downlinz

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

100% this.

There are some people on this thread who seem to think we should all collectively suffer for months on end so that those who need to isolate don't feel 'left out' or something. Completely disregarding not only what that would do to the economy but also everyone else's lives.

If I were 85 and in ill health, I certainly wouldn't want or expect to be anyone's priority. That's not meant in a callous way, but some people need to understand there are no winners here. The way it's going, the young are going to be sacrificed for the old. People who are elderly have lived their lives already. They've had their weddings and their careers and raised their kids, and now all that is being taken away from young people. There's a generation of teenagers having their education ruined, enormous stress put on families which will lead to family breakdown and even violence, weddings being cancelled, long distance relationships breaking up, surgery cancelled, people with poor mental health suffering enormously.

I really hate the narrative that the protective measures are implemented only to protect the elderly and vulnerable.

Yes, people like us probably won't die but it's still a horrifying illness to be inflicted which can involve several weeks of agony struggling to breath, a potential hospital stay and an equally long recovery time as you're very susceptible to secondary infections after tremendous toll from your immune system to fight this thing.
Then there's the possibility of no immunity, HIV type reactivation, indications of permanent lung damage and shortened lifespan. There's so much we don't know about this virus and a worrying amount of evidence to indicate it's not just a "one and done" kind of thing.

When you're weighing that up against the likes of "weddings being cancelled" then I wonder if you've thought your priorities through.

khalessi wrote: »

I would not be surprised if lockdown was extended to encompass the June bank holiday weekend

Oh definitely. The lockdown.on social things is here to stay for months or years. But if the infection rates are looking good, they might loosen restrictions on some jobs to get production up and keep infection rates up close to health service capacity.

The sensible way to do it is to get transmissions rates up through economic activity. Best of both worlds.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They haven't said it's the policy but it's absolutely the policy they'll pursue. The alternative is to keep infections as low as possible and cross our fingers that a vaccine is created in the next 5 years - or maybe a vaccine will never be created in which case... what do we do?

The sensible thing to do it keep infections to the max rate where the health service can deal with it and get 2/3 of us infected over the next year or 2. Obviously the vulnerable people will need to be cocooned until herd Immunity is achieved.

Our hospitals are under pressure with the current 10,000 cases.

You're proposing 3 million cases over the next two years. At the most optimistic mortality rate of 0.5% that's 150,000 deaths, 15,000 of them in people under 65 plus a devastated health system

[Deleted User]

SusanC10 wrote: »

Do you think that the 2km will be lifted before a Vaccine?
I suppose I have been thinking that these restrictions will continue until there is a Vaccine but who knows ?

Nothing will be in place until a vaccine, because an effective vaccine might simply never arrive.

As soon as non essential business can reopen and tradespeople can operate again (whenever that is, and subject to whatever mitigating measures remain in place) the 2km (or indeed any distance rule) will naturally be unworkable and be removed

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They haven't said it's the policy but it's absolutely the policy they'll pursue. The alternative is to keep infections as low as possible and cross our fingers that a vaccine is created in the next 5 years - or maybe a vaccine will never be created in which case... what do we do?

The sensible thing to do it keep infections to the max rate where the health service can deal with it and get 2/3 of us infected over the next year or 2. Obviously the vulnerable people will need to be cocooned until herd Immunity is achieved.

The problem is that herd immunity has become such a dirty phrase, and is associated with just sitting back and letting thousands die, when this is not what it is about.

Cork Boy 53

khalessi wrote: »

I would not be surprised if lockdown was extended to encompass the June bank holiday weekend

That will depend on the rate of ICU cases and deaths over the next few weeks. The authorities will be playing a waiting game during this period.