Relaxation of restrictions

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Okay but that effectively means lockdown carries on for a large proportion of the population: kids can't go to school, young adults can't go out to work, no visiting friends/relatives etc.

Yeah. Life as we knew it is over until we deal with this thing. And we can’t get back to any kind of normality without herd immunity.

As it stands, people can’t go to school, can’t go to work, can’t socialise, can’t travel.

The vulnerable will need to cocoon until this thing is over (that’s the way it stands right now) and anyone living with a vulnerable person will also need to effectively cocoon to protect the vulnerable person in the household (that’s also the way it stands right now).

If we never find a vaccine or never achieve herd immunity, then those vulnerable people and the people they live with, will have to cocoon for the rest of their lives if thy continue to live with a vulnerable person (that’s also a the way things stand right now).

Without herd immunity through a vaccine or people surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.

thebaz

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/lockdowns-should-be-lifted-in-two-week-stages-to-stem-covid-19-spread-who-39129741.html

Latest WHO guidance, EU issued something similar this morning also.

Lots of realisation that nations have done relatively well to slow the spread and use the time to build capacity but that these restrictions just isn't feasible now long term.

good news - and common sense

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. Life as we knew it is over until we deal with this thing. And we can’t get back to any kind of normality without herd immunity.

As it stands, people can’t go to school, can’t go to work, can’t socialise, can’t travel.

The vulnerable will need to cocoon until this thing is over (that’s the way it stands right now) and anyone living with a vulnerable person will also need to effectively cocoon to protect the vulnerable person I the household (that’s also the way it stands right now).

If we never find a vaccine or never achieve herd immunity, then those vulnerable people and the people they live with, will have to cocoon for the rest of their lives if thy continue to live with a vulnerable person (that’s also a the way things stand right now).

Without herd immunity through a vaccine or proper surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.

The best case shorter term is that we find an effective treatment, whilst we wait for (hopefully) a vaccine down the line.

bladespin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Without herd immunity through a vaccine or people surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.

I think you're misunderstanding the real reason for the lockdown, not to protect people specifically, more to protect the medical service so it's not overwhelmed in a short burst: flatten the curve to it can treat greater numbers over a longer time, thereby protecting people in general.
That's the way I see it anyway

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The best case shorter term is that we find an effective treatment, whilst we wait for (hopefully) a vaccine down the line.

Of course. Fingers crossed.

There’s time to wait for a couple of months. Couple of months is not long in the scale of this situation. We can use that time to build hospital capacity, figure out what factors make someone more or leas vulnerable to catching it and experiencing acute symptoms, figure out if a vaccine is likely and how long it would likely take and find out more about the virus and it’s transmission. If there’s a vaccine around the corner then, great.

If not then we need a proactive plan to achieve herd immunity through managed transmission, using loosening and tightening restrictions - and making sure the health service isn’t overrun at any point.

I’d like a proactive plan alongside wishful thinking.

Stateofyou

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You've completely missed the point of what's gone on.

Go on so. Give us another example. Maybe a general surgeon this time is going to remove your entire internal organ system instead of performing a simple appendectomy that's needed. But you objected instead of blindly following "the expert" and therefore saved your own life. :pac:

bladespin wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding the real reason for the lockdown, not to protect people specifically, more to protect the medical service so it's not overwhelmed in a short burst: flatten the curve to it can treat greater numbers over a longer time, thereby protecting people in general.
That's the way I see it anyway

Why do you think I didn’t understand that? I’ve said loads of times that they will loosen and tighten restrictions to keep transmissions at or close to the max rate the health service can deal with acute cases.

bladespin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do you think I didn’t understand that? I’ve said loads of times that they will loosen and tighten restrictions to keep transmissions at or close to the max rate the health service can deal with acute cases.

Your post seemed to imply we would be living in lock-down until herd immunity or a vaccine is found, apols if I misunderstood.

seamus

castletownman wrote: »

And as you mentioned, if you are feeling unwell with symptoms similar to Covid, stay the eff at home too. Make it mandatory for employers to provide sick pay in that scenario.

We shouldn't leave it up to guesswork.

"I have a cough, but no fever, ah sure it'll be grand".

The messaging should be a blanket - if you're at all feeling unwell, stay the eff at home. If you wake up with a sore throat, don't go to work. If your kids wake up with a bunch of spots on their body, don't send them to school. If you've got a runny nose, maybe don't go to your Ma for Sunday dinner. You can see her next week.

And so forth. The more room you leave for "ah sure it'll be grand", the more people will use it.

bladespin wrote: »

Your post seemed to imply we would be living in lock-down until herd immunity or a vaccine is found, apols if I misunderstood.

We will be living with restrictions (not full lockdown) until herd immunity is achieved either through a vaccine or people surviving the disease.

I was responding to a poster who asked about vulnerable people and those who live with a vulnerable people. Those specific people need to stay cocooned until there’s herd immunity.

The rest of will need to become immune one way or the other.

For clarity, I think they will relax some restrictions to increase transmission and tighten restrictions to make sure the health service can deal with the acute cases.

Stateofyou wrote: »

Go on so. Give us another example. Maybe a general surgeon this time is going to remove your entire internal organ system instead of performing a simple appendectomy that's needed. But you objected instead of blindly following "the expert" and therefore saved your own life. :pac:

Honestly, you've missed what's gone on, but that made me laugh!

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We will be living with restrictions (not full lockdown) until herd immunity is achieved either through a vaccine or people surviving the disease.

I was responding to a poster who asked about vulnerable people and those who live with a vulnerable people. Those specific people need to stay cocooned until there’s herd immunity.

The rest of will need to become immune one way or the other.

For clarity, I think they will relax some restrictions to increase transmission and tighten restrictions to make sure the health service can deal with the acute cases.

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

khalessi wrote: »

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

What do you propose happens instead?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. Life as we knew it is over until we deal with this thing. And we can’t get back to any kind of normality without herd immunity.

As it stands, people can’t go to school, can’t go to work, can’t socialise, can’t travel.

The vulnerable will need to cocoon until this thing is over (that’s the way it stands right now) and anyone living with a vulnerable person will also need to effectively cocoon to protect the vulnerable person in the household (that’s also the way it stands right now).

If we never find a vaccine or never achieve herd immunity, then those vulnerable people and the people they live with, will have to cocoon for the rest of their lives if thy continue to live with a vulnerable person (that’s also a the way things stand right now).

Without herd immunity through a vaccine or people surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.

This is why it is so important to get people back to work, so that more housing units can be built, and more of the people who cocoon have somewhere to do it.

You limit their contact with friends and family, and apply all best practice precautions at all times.

Along with increased testing you hope that anybody who gets infected gets traced quickly.

That is why an improved testing regime is so important for when the lifting of restrictions begins on May 5th.

Ms2011

I can see it from both sides really.
I am immunosuppressed at them moment due to medication I am on so can understand the fear people have of relaxing restrictions and reigniting a second wave of infections.
But I'm also a parent and have a family that needs financial supporting, my husband is luckily still working but every week of lockdown puts that in jeopardy.

KiKi III wrote: »

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.

Same thing.

I tend to research a dentist's reputation and feedback before before going to him, and then use this information to decide what I do. I'm laso open to asking questions and getting more than one opinoin before deciding what I need to get done.

skallywag wrote: »

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.

What do you mean by "real" cases? As far as I know, that number is impossible to gauge (as in, I assume you're inc;uding asyntomatic people or people who dont know they have the virus)?

ICU occupancy is the key statistic with active cases. It's caseload/active cases versus ICU capacity that will decide policy.

Ultimately: how prepared are we?

khalessi wrote: »

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

Yeah I think you're right. Vulnerable people will have to cocoon until it's safe for them to go back out again. The alternative would be to encourage those people to go out and risk catching the disease. Would anyone recommend that?

It's a large portion of the population but right now the restrictions applies to almost everyone.

khalessi

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What do you propose happens instead?

I think the Irish dont really rebel about anything. In 1916 we had a rising my grandmother gave out because the bus ws late to bring her to town, and she lived 3 miles away and hadnt a clue it was going on. So for all we celebrate it was localised to a large extent.

Its not our nature to rebel so I think we could get way with the situation as it stands till end of June and then review.

robinph

khalessi wrote: »

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

No. The way that the whole of society functions has to change so that it limits close contact with random other people, and then those who are more vulnerable can still get out and function in the world because everyone is keeping their distance from everyone else when shopping or passing in the street or working, that limits transmission amongst the population and reduces the chances of the vulnerable getting infected as well.

Protect the herd by keeping your distance in the absence of the herd being immune.

khalessi wrote: »

I think the Irish dont really rebel about anything. In 1916 we had a rising my grandmother gave out because the bus ws late to bring her to town, and she lived 3 miles away and hadnt a clue it was going on. So for all we celebrate it was localised to a large extent.

Its not our nature to rebel so I think we could get way with the situation as it stands till end of June and then review.

But we're talking beyond June. It's widely believed that Covid is here to stay. Do you propose that the restrictions last beyond June, and if so, when do you think they should end? And if they do end, what is the plan then?

The plan that El Duderino is proposing is for the coming year or two if not longer. We're not talking about a couple of months.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

No. The way that the whole of society functions has to change so that it limits close contact with random other people, and then those who are more vulnerable can still get out and function in the world because everyone is keeping their distance from everyone else when shopping or passing in the street or working, that limits transmission amongst the population and reduces the chances of the vulnerable getting infected as well.

Protect the herd by keeping your distance in the absence of the herd being immune.

Many young healthy people are dying. Also, the virus can leave healthy young people with heart and lung problems even if they survive.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Many young healthy people are dying. Also, the virus can leave healthy young people with heart and lung problems even if they survive.

What percentage of deaths have been healthy young people?

Can you back or your second claim?

Cheers!

JoeExotic81

It's funny how some people want to default to experts on this. There are literally no experts on this, it's completely unprecedented.

The fact some countries are taking wildly different strategies on this proves as such.

Complete and utter guessing game.

khalessi

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What percentage of deaths have been healthy young people?

Can you back or your second claim?

Cheers!

I was watching a video on either the NY Times or Washington post where doctors were discussing the damage ventilators were doing to hearts and lungs. It is also known that Covid damges the heart if you get it bad enough

Re percetage of deaths of young people even 1 is too many especially if it is the 1 from your family

khalessi wrote: »

I think the Irish dont really rebel about anything. In 1916 we had a rising my grandmother gave out because the bus ws late to bring her to town, and she lived 3 miles away and hadnt a clue it was going on. So for all we celebrate it was localised to a large extent.

Its not our nature to rebel so I think we could get way with the situation as it stands till end of June and then review.

What has 1916 got to do with this?

What are we rebelling against?

bladespin

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Many young healthy people are dying. Also, the virus can leave healthy young people with heart and lung problems even if they survive.

Not that many really though sadly it does happen

Fatality rate by age

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Many young healthy people are dying. Also, the virus can leave healthy young people with heart and lung problems even if they survive.

No they are not. I have heard of a 32 yo and a 46 yo.

[Deleted User]

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Many young healthy people are dying. Also, the virus can leave healthy young people with heart and lung problems even if they survive.

Not ‘many’. A small number. But, yes, some are dying.

But there will not be a vaccine for many many months, maybe never. So we will have to learn to live with it, and embed behaviours around hygiene, social distancing etc. And probably be prepared for a permanent invasion of our privacy through the use of mobile phone data to contact trace. And be prepared for periodic short term lockdowns if the data shows that the ICU might become over capacity.

Professor Moriarty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What percentage of deaths have been healthy young people?

Can you back or your second claim?

Cheers!

You can google the first question yourself. Regarding your second request, it's not a claim it's a fact.