nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Relaxation of restrictions

Red Alert

Simon Harris curiously made a comment that there was a limit to how long people could put up with extreme level of restrictions as we currently have. Already we’re seeing in Italy that people are starting to get restless. So two big questions:

1) on Easter Sunday, do you think there will be further restrictions, no change with just an extension or some relaxation?

2) what will be the first thing rolled back?

My own guess would be: extension for at least 1 week. Then to allow some businesses like DIY shops to reopen, perhaps allow gatherings of 2/3 people, maybe a token increase on 2km.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

alwald

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except that no one is suggesting that there be no restrictions. Life will be different. But the ICU is there to be used

That particular poster said that he wants everyone who could go outside to do so which entails that there are no restrictions in place.

ICU are there to be used the same as restrictions are there to be used to save lives.

lainey_d_123

alwald wrote: »

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

Everyone understands that. Nobody is saying that no restrictions should be in place. People are saying that we cannot be in lockdown indefinitely, and it will need to be lifted soon, with a return to something close to 'normality' long before any vaccine is found.

It's laughable and sad that you don't understand that the effects of a ruined economy will be many times worse than the effects of the virus. The people worrying about what MIGHT happen if this virus turns out to cause permanent lung damage would be better off thinking instead about what WILL happen if the economy crashes. No need to worry about your lungs if you'll be dead of starvation or stabbed to death for your wallet.

CtevenSrowder

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Ridiculous, emotional claptrap. I lost a close and dear relative in a traffic accident a few years back, so should we ban all cars? Hundreds of people die in road accidents every year, and yet we accept that the reward is generally greater than the risk. I lost a friend in a freak rugby accident a while back too - should we ban sports? No, of course not. Yet you think we should shut down the entire country for months or years on end, causing untold hardship, mental and physical harm and deaths because 'one death from covid is too many'?

To be fair she's had the banning car analogy thrown at her 3 times at this stage.

JoeExotic81

Downlinz wrote: »

The virus is around 5 months old at this stage and thousands of infectious disease researchers and medical professionals have observed it and its characteristics enough to make recommendations.
To say we know nothing or that it's an "utter guessing game" on the grounds of not knowing absolutely everything about it is being willfully ignorant.

Also remember that containment strategies are chosen by political leaders, medical experts can only advise. Many of the most outlandish "strategies" like in Belarus or Brazil are not medically approved.

I'm specifically talking about restrictions, not the virus. It's a complete guessing game in that respect. Nobody knows the long term ramifications of this "better safe than sorry" approach we seem to be taking.

Over half the planet is in lockdown. It's unprecedented. The effects of this lockdown could yet outweigh the effects of the virus itself.

I just welcome the debate on these restrictions.

A lot of people in this thread seem like they'd be happier living in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Question nothing, do as you're told, indefinitely.

[Deleted User]

alwald wrote: »

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

Except that no one is suggesting that there be no restrictions. Life will be different. But the ICU is there to be used

Downlinz

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

If you ask everybody to cocoon who either has one of those conditions or lives with someone who has a condition or someone over 70 then you're going to have an incredibly fractured society.

There's nearly half a million with Asthma alone according to this: https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/hl/living/asthma/aboutasthma/
Multiply that by 2 or 3 for those living with them and you've lost nearly half the workforce on just one condition.

alwald

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

castletownman

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

Well definitely they should be told to avoid socialising, be it going to matches, night-clubbing, a concert or wherever else they are likely to be among a throng of people. Until it is safe to do so of course. Common sense really.

It's like someone who is allergic to nuts. Wouldn't it be foolish of them to horse into a packet of peanuts if they are hungry? Or a fella who has just had heart surgery-be wise not to smoke that 20 pack of fags every day now.

Your health is better than your wealth and all that.

lainey_d_123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I use 60 as it is the HSE guideline for being at risk as over 60 is considered an age risk. That's why I said young and healthy people will die from Cironavirus and will be left with long term heart and lung problems.

But what do we do about it? Most of us are going to get it eventually, whatever happens. We can't stay indoors for two years. It's simply impossible.

khalessi wrote: »

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

Ridiculous, emotional claptrap. I lost a close and dear relative in a traffic accident a few years back, so should we ban all cars? Hundreds of people die in road accidents every year, and yet we accept that the reward is generally greater than the risk. I lost a friend in a freak rugby accident a while back too - should we ban sports? No, of course not. Yet you think we should shut down the entire country for months or years on end, causing untold hardship, mental and physical harm and deaths because 'one death from covid is too many'?

Idbatterim

youandme13 wrote: »

An 18 yo died in England and a 12 yo girl died in America..

we know that a tiny tiny percent of younger people can die from getting it!

Squeaksoutloud

Also those percentages of people you are quoting are only in confirmed cases. We know from research that you can multiply confirmed numbers by a doctor of 15-20 to estimate real number of cases out there.

Imperial College Report, testing in particular town in Italy, Iceland testing, Madrid figures and latest from NY regarding 80% asymptomatic in pregnant women attending a particular hospital...note this will be less as follow up was only within 3 days.

CtevenSrowder

youandme13 wrote: »

An 18 yo died in England and a 12 yo girl died in America..

No ones denying that young people can die from it. The claim was that "many healthy" young people do. This is pertainly not true. I suggest we move on.

lainey_d_123

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

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

Weller81

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How do ventilators cause damage?

They cause scar tissue in the lungs leaving less usable areas available for the exchange of gases.

Premature babies usually develop chronic lung disease, this isn't a condition of prematurity as such but as a result of the damage done by vents that are required to assist breathing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So 2.3% of people under 60 who contract coronavirus die from it. That means today that 264 people under 60 have died or will die of coronavirus.

2.3% is not "many" and 60 is not "young".

At the time of writing, today's worldwide deathtoll is 1470, so totday's total is currently about 32/33. Yesterday about 150. Not that many compared to numbers over 60.

The total number of in Ireland, should the statistic be concistent, would therefore be 9. From a population of five million. So again, not something people under 60 would panic about as it's more than 500,000 to 1 chance of dying of cornoavirus if you're under 60.

And again - that's assuming that they all - as you put it , young AND healthy - which is very unlikley ot be the case.

Claim statistically debunked

Professor Moriarty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That's not many then, considering 98% don't die.

They can, doesn't mean they will. Isn't something like 80% of cases mild anyway, and so not in danger of having these problems. Regardless, If Covid is here to stay, I don't see what can be done about this necessarily anyway.

Apart from being infectious, mild cases are irrelevant to the point.

Downlinz

JoeExotic81 wrote: »

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.

The virus is around 5 months old at this stage and thousands of infectious disease researchers and medical professionals have observed it and its characteristics enough to make recommendations.
To say we know nothing or that it's an "utter guessing game" on the grounds of not knowing absolutely everything about it is being willfully ignorant.

Also remember that containment strategies are chosen by political leaders, medical experts can only advise. Many of the most outlandish "strategies" like in Belarus or Brazil are not medically approved.

youandme13

easypazz wrote: »

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

An 18 yo died in England and a 12 yo girl died in America..

easypazz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I use 60 as it is the HSE guideline for being at risk as over 60 is considered an age risk. That's why I said young and healthy people will die from Cironavirus and will be left with long term heart and lung problems.

You said "many" young and healthy

The HSE does not class people aged 60 as being young.

easypazz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So 2.3% of people under 60 who contract coronavirus die from it. That means today that 264 people under 60 have died or will die of coronavirus.

You are the only one pretending "young" is anybody below 60.

Also you said "young and healthy"

You are making a fool out of yourself now "professor"

Healthy people under 30, from the 406 dead in Ireland, how many please?

Professor Moriarty

easypazz wrote: »

Yes and you still haven't told us how many young healthy people are dying.

You have now stretched the age of young to being 60.

Lets say 30 years or below is "young", even "40"

406 deaths in Ireland, 90% over 65

So 40 people under 65 are dead.

How many of these are healthy and under 40 do you think?

I use 60 as it is the HSE guideline for being at risk as over 60 is considered an age risk. That's why I said young and healthy people will die from Cironavirus and will be left with long term heart and lung problems.

JoeExotic81

Tell me how wrote: »

It's not unprecedented in that it was forewarned by several people and SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola etc were similar.

The extent of this is much greater than the above, but it was very much expected that something like this would occur.

If we don't listen to the people who have experience in dealing with the above events, who do you advise we listen to?

Listen to, take all the many opinions into consideration, that's all fine. That's not my point. My point is the constant sniping at people for questioning "the experts", when there's every reason to question the current strategy.

El_Duderino 09

khalessi wrote: »

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.

If you think this thing is going to be over in a couple of weeks so we can permanently lift restrictions in june, then I’m genuinely jealous of your naïveté.

Vulnerable people and those they live with are going to be cocooning until herd immunity is achieved either through a vaccine or people surviving the disease. Neither of those things is happening by June

scamalert

bluelamp wrote: »

Please, please, stop making things up - what a ridiculous statement.

I swear, some people are genuinely loving the misery of this.

Coronavirus has made me realise how many people love living miserable lives, and love to try drag everyone down with them.

Yes this is a serious situation, but no, its not the "new normal" that so many depressing people seem to be wishing for.

We will go on holidays again, we will drink in pubs again, we will eat out again, kids will go to school again.

Miserable people will still be miserable though.

This sums it up nicely, the amount of doom gloomers online is insane some do really live miserable existence, even furthermore those mentally not well will come out with most ridicilous claims and excuses, reality is most people just obey the rules for now, many try to live as normal life as possible, theres no hysteria in shops on streets or in parks, most just enjoy getting out, people still talk to each other taking distance into account, but few really not well in their heads will scream how they are basically killing people doing this- and that we need more measures in place.

Those quite few people can sit here thanking each other all day long pretending to know it all and just spread their misery as if were all doomed forever.

Yet reality is most will go back to normal still go on holidays eat out, sure some will have to strap themselves and save as economy will be in ruins, but wont prevent people to get back to normal in a snap of a finger as social life goes.

CtevenSrowder

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's a good analysis here. In terms of cases of young people dying, it would seem to be about 2% for those under 60 (those considered not at risk due to age). For example, 1/250 people in their 40s who got the virus died from it. Of course you have to factor in prexeisting conditions.

That's not many then, considering 98% don't die.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, but when people are hospitalised and don't die, they can have very serious and permanent heart and lung damage.

They can, doesn't mean they will. Isn't something like 80% of cases mild anyway, and so not in danger of having these problems. Regardless, If Covid is here to stay, I don't see what can be done about this necessarily anyway.

easypazz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm here.

Yes and you still haven't told us how many young healthy people are dying.

You have now stretched the age of young to being 60.

Lets say 30 years or below is "young", even "40"

406 deaths in Ireland, 90% over 65

So 40 people under 65 are dead.

How many of these are healthy and under 40 do you think?

Professor Moriarty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I certainly can, Prof and the answer is 0.2% under 40 and 0.4% 40-50. And that's before you take into account pre-existing health conditions.
Hardly "many" healthy people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

So 2.3% of people under 60 who contract coronavirus die from it. That means today that 264 people under 60 have died or will die of coronavirus.

facehugger99

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm here.

Presumably you can back up your claims so.

Professor Moriarty

easypazz wrote: »

Watch him disappear for a few hours now. He knows he's beaten.

I'm here.

Professor Moriarty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You made the claim. Back it up. You can't say that many healthy young people are dying and not expect someone to ask for evidence.

The fact that it can effect the heart is worrying however

"Heart damage isn't typical in mild cases of COVID-19, and tends to occur more often in patients who have severe symptoms and are hospitalized, she said".

Is quite important. The overwhelming majority of cases are not hospitalised and are mild.

There's a good analysis here. In terms of cases of young people dying, it would seem to be about 2% for those under 60 (those considered not at risk due to age). For example, 1/250 people in their 40s who got the virus died from it. Of course you have to factor in prexeisting conditions.

Yeah, but when people are hospitalised and don't die, they can have very serious and permanent heart and lung damage.