easypazz wrote: » And for a lot of people they won't be able for it, and so they are being let die because another section of society can be saved. We need to live with this, accept that it will kill people, the same as cancer and heart attacks kill people.
KrustyUCC wrote: » They can't keep extending the lockdown after that We can't run from the virus long term either as a vaccine might never work unfortunately
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yeah I think that's what we're doing right now. If we thought we could kill the disease we would have a complete month long stay at home order for everyone except medical staff. but that's very impractical as there might not be a month's supply of food for everyone. Instead, we're building up hospital capacity and trying to keep the rate of infection at or below hospital capacity. The only way through this is through a managed herd immunity over the course of the next year or two. As the rate of infection slows, they will reduce restrictions to speed up infections, then tighten restrictions to keep them manageable, then rinse and repeat until we have herd immunity
Stateofyou wrote: » Have you never heard of "flatten the curve?" The point is that if we all go back to normal, our health care systems will be overrun. More people will die, and even more people will suffer or die from knock on effect of being unable to be treated for whatever their health urgency is. It's about saving as many lives as possible, getting the spread under control in as much as possible for our health system to cope. Then we can look at re-opening with restrictions until we have a treatment/vaccine. What do you not understand about this very simple concept.
KiKi III wrote: » It's not at all. It's the truthful answer, and I've been consistent on it through the thread.
pgj2015 wrote: » could you not just go see her and wear a mask?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Can you not think for yourself, no?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Can you not see her when the 2Km restrictions are lifted? You just have to maintain your social distance so no hugging for example as awful as it is.
KiKi III wrote: » I can. And having thought it through for myself I realised that I'm not a doctor or an epidemiologist or an economist so it's best to take my guidance from such people.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » So if not 5th of May, what needs to happen statistically for you to be happy with easing restrictions? How long is too long?
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 ?
KiKi III wrote: » As has been discussed at length on the thread, herd immunity requires 60% of the population to become infected, about 3 million people in Ireland's case. It is not and never has been the government's strategy to pursue herd immunity because even spread over two years (or five), 3 million cases would absolutely decimate our health system.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Noone can say for definite but I say it will be gone long before a vaccine comes about. The 2km is unlikely in the extreme to be with us for the next 2 years.
khalessi wrote: » I would not be surprised if lockdown was extended to encompass the June bank holiday weekend
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.
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.
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
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Check your maths
KiKi III wrote: » Looks right to me but I’ll admit it’s not my strongpoint - what’s wrong as you see it?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Obviously the vulnerable people will need to be cocooned until herd Immunity is achieved.
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.