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

bladespin

Wibbs wrote: »

If the WHO and the HSE and the government came out tomorrow(and they likely will soon enough, just like a host of countries already have) and told you they were of benefit in reducing community spread and you had to wear one, would your mind change? I'd bet the farm it would.

Grand, sign it over, PM for details. I'll wear one if I have to but to me it's useless unless this thing suddenly develops in the air.

CtevenSrowder

KiKi III wrote: »

The comparison with driving a car is a particularly bad one in the context of relaxing restrictions.

Driving a car is one of the most restricted activities we do as a society.

There are restrictions on how you learn, multiple tests, what speed you can drive at, how old the car is before it needs regular quality checks, tax, insurance, penalty points for breaking rules etc etc etc

And yet people still die doing it. Go figure.

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

So should we all give up driving cars if it saves a few lives in crashes?

Do you own a car knowing you could kill a 23 year old with it?

The comparison with driving a car is a particularly bad one in the context of relaxing restrictions.

Driving a car is one of the most restricted activities we do as a society.

There are restrictions on how you learn, multiple tests, what speed you can drive at, how old the car is before it needs regular quality checks, tax, insurance, penalty points for breaking rules etc etc etc

CtevenSrowder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Asked to outline how long restrictions should remain in place, reams off a load of guff and doesn't answer the question.

Colour me surprised.

You have no answers.

Posters that want a continuation of restrictions never do.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

You think you can blithely add healthcare workers to the at-risk group and get away with it LoL. Stop digging. If age restrictions are imposed you can always borrow an age card like the kids do at the other end of the spectrum.

facehugger99

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Asked to outline how long restrictions should remain in place, reams off a load of guff and doesn't answer the question.

Colour me surprised.

You have no answers.

Ace2007

scamalert wrote: »

think you dont have a clue about nursing homes nor carers to be fair, how they have been neglected by likes of government and HSE at cost cutting for years, you wanna blame someone dont put it on regular people.

this has been mentioned before theres no point if someone in nursing home gets ill depending on their condition to put them trough extreme stress, or into coma on ventilator. since theres no cure, little can be done, so its way safer to keep person as comfortable as possible where they are, imagine equipment oxygen can be brought in and room isolated properly, but all boils down to ones health and if their body can fight it, as ICU is end of the road for most people.

also you still backtracked and avoided any source to say those under 30 suffer as theres only been single case 3 days ago where youngest person to die was of age 30, no where near 23 in Ireland. If there wasnt any other deaths under that age it would seem massive but, i can see you clearly have your own agenda going.

Regarding nursing homes - i admit i don't know much about public run nursing homes, but do know about private ones, and have seen letters outlining that residents will not be tested going forward (if more than 2 in the home have tested positive), instead they will be treated as positive and treated onsite. As for their ages and that - we've heard cases of people in Europe in their 90's and even 100's coming out of hospital after fighting the virus - so don't assume all elderly people are on the way out just cause they get the virus.

It was stated yesterday, or day before that a 23 year old died. Do you want me to get you a link for that or can you use google?

Google" 23 year old dies of covid 19 in ireland" and you will get loads of sources...

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

B

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else

So should we all give up driving cars if it saves a few lives in crashes?

Do you own a car knowing you could kill a 23 year old with it?

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

And you are proposing that noone goes back to "normal" until a vaccine is found under the guise of solidarity and not "excluding" people. This is the worst of bad options.

What is being posited is that there are a gradual reduction in the restrictions that we have i.e. the 2km rule, a reopening of businesses (with pubs and clubs down the bottom of the list) alongside a continuation (and hopefully an increase) in testing measures.

Healthwokers and old people may be advised to cocoon, and whether they do or not is up to them. They are adults.

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

But you don't need to feel unwell to have the virus - and that is the key point that people are missing.

Yes, but you are more likely to display symptoms than otherwise.

By your logic, nowhere can ever open ever again as we could still be carrying the virus unbeknownst to ourselves.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

This is utter nonsense. By that thinking I should have it by now as my wife works with covid positive patients every day. The fact is she follows all of the protocols strictly and wears the PPE correctly. If my chances of dying from Covid19 were high I would take extra precautions. I would not expect others to do the same. As my mother used to say "Just because he puts his finger in the fire doesn't mean you should too."

Wibbs

bladespin wrote: »

I'm currently working at a customer site, a factory with over a thousand people, I'm not wearing a mask, I know I don't need one.

If the WHO and the HSE and the government came out tomorrow(and they likely will soon enough, just like a host of countries already have) and told you they were of benefit in reducing community spread and you had to wear one, would your mind change? I'd bet the farm it would.

From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway and that there are measures in place to reduce that even further.

Nobody know, that's the fact, but I feel quite safe and that's about as good as you can be.

Do whatever helps you get by, if you need to use a mask as a crutch to cope with fear etc, that's fine, just don't suddenly think it's going to stop an infection, that's all.

I quite honestly can't believe what I'm reading there. Never mind what you think passes as fact. I hope to god it's a wind up of some nature, because otherwise I really dunno what to think. The largest pandemic in world history over the last century and only four months in we already have millions infected, over a hundred thousand people already dead, a current death rate of over 6%(which will hopefully drop a lot) economies tanked and "the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway", "nobody knows" and "I feel quite safe".

Jesus Christ. This folks, this is sadly why we need restrictions. I for one am relieved that this dose isn't more deadly. If this had the death rate and infection demographic profile of something like smallpox we would be utterly reset the modern world fcuked and it would be "thinking" like the above that would get us there.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

Sorry i meant 23 year olds - which is fact.

A 23 y.o..

One, yes 1.

Yet you keep using this persons death to try score a cheap point.

scamalert

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

think you dont have a clue about nursing homes nor carers to be fair, how they have been neglected by likes of government and HSE at cost cutting for years, you wanna blame someone dont put it on regular people.

this has been mentioned before theres no point if someone in nursing home gets ill depending on their condition to put them trough extreme stress, or into coma on ventilator. since theres no cure, little can be done, so its way safer to keep person as comfortable as possible where they are, imagine equipment oxygen can be brought in and room isolated properly, but all boils down to ones health and if their body can fight it, as ICU is end of the road for most people.

also you still backtracked and avoided any source to say those under 30 suffer as theres only been single case 3 days ago where youngest person to die was of age 30, no where near 23 in Ireland. If there wasnt any other deaths under that age it would seem massive but, i can see you clearly have your own agenda going.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes it is better to exclude them then everyone.

If we don't, for how long do we "exclude" the whole of society from doing such things. You need to give some sort of an answer to this.

I'm not up for excluding people - i'm up for society practicing social distancing etc. If you are considered of the sick/elderly/healthcare workers etc, you have a better chance of it been enforced.

The proposal by many on here is that you exclude the elderly/sick/healthcare workers from going back to "normal" until a vaccine is found, as they pose risks to society - whether increased risk to themselves for the elderly/sick, or increased risk to others - i.e. healthcare workers unknowingly having the virus and mixing in social circles.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Apologies I meant to quote Lainey!

They won't answer, they are happy to spiel on muddying the waters about what they claimed was said without providing a link. We shall never know who "they" are.............

"No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t."

NH2013

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Yes, it’s targeted, it’s for the greater good.

How do you expect us to pay for the healthcare worker or the pension of the elderly person for the next 18-24 months if we indefinitely lock down all businesses so some don’t feel left out?

Any reduction in lockdown measures will have to be in targeted areas, which might not seem fair to certain groups, to the pub owner if the hardware store owner gets to open 9 months before him, or to the school kids that see others go back to work before they can go to school, or to pensioners and over 70s as they see the rest of the world able to go about their normal day to day business but it’s not a sensible approach at all to advocate that we all wait until the bitter end until all restrictions can be lifted at once so no one feels left out, that’s simply madness.

The lockdown will have to be lifted bit by bit in the least risky areas first and then will follow a gradual return to normality, but it won’t be equally fair on everyone.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

Wrong. Some people are being moved to hospital and some aren't. That call is being made by families in conjunction with doctors. You do realise that some people in nursing homes are very frail and would not benefit from being moved to a hospital. Many are more robust and if they require hospital treatment then they get it.

Ace2007

castletownman wrote: »

I do agree that we all should abide to hygiene practice. My point is that a healthcare worker would have the know-how NOT to mingle in crowd settings if they are feeling unwell- we shouldn't be all held responsible for the actions of others if people who probably shouldn't be out and about do go out and about and end up sick.

We can all make sure we are as hygienic as possible, we can't legislate for those people putting their own health at risk.

But you don't need to feel unwell to have the virus - and that is the key point that people are missing.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Yes it is better to exclude them then everyone.

If we don't, for how long do we "exclude" the whole of society from doing such things. You need to give some sort of an answer to this.

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

But it shouldn't be left to the healthcare worker to abide to hygiene practice - instead society as a whole should be doing it. Would you not agree.

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else, it will work, but if you say that x cohort or y cohort of people have to isolate or can't be out in public, it just wont' work - be it an elderly person or a healthcare worker.

I do agree that we all should abide to hygiene practice. My point is that a healthcare worker would have the know-how NOT to mingle in crowd settings if they are feeling unwell- we shouldn't be all held responsible for the actions of others if people who probably shouldn't be out and about do go out and about and end up sick.

We can all make sure we are as hygienic as possible, we can't legislate for those people putting their own health at risk.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What is it that you are proposing? That we continue on with restrictions for how long?

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Ace2007

castletownman wrote: »

Well I would assume that a healthcare worker would have been subject to all the necessary protection during work, and more importantly be cognisant of the need to stay indoors if they feel unwell. The latter bit is important. If a healthcare worker isn't abiding to hygiene practises etc., then we are in deeper trouble.

But it shouldn't be left to the healthcare worker to abide to hygiene practice - instead society as a whole should be doing it. Would you not agree.

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else, it will work, but if you say that x cohort or y cohort of people have to isolate or can't be out in public, it just wont' work - be it an elderly person or a healthcare worker.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

What is it that you are proposing? That we continue on with restrictions for how long?

CtevenSrowder

Augeo wrote: »

Another poster suggested that, not me...... I've asked for detail on it several times, it's not forthcoming.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113174668&postcount=6855

Apologies I meant to quote Lainey!

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

My attitude, and I have been very consistent with it, is that the sick and the elderly should have been looked after first. But you would not be prepared to have them singled out for special attention as you want to have "everyone treated equally."

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

bladespin

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

How do you know this?

From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway and that there are measures in place to reduce that even further.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When did the HSE or WHO argue that wearing facemasks could "make things worse" as you suggested?

Another poster suggested that, not me...... I've asked for detail on it several times, it's not forthcoming.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113174668&postcount=6855

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not to put you on the spot, but would you be against a healthcare worker in a COVID 19 setting, attending the likes of pubs, concerts, restuarants? After all if everyone was to do social distancing it would reduce the chances of anyone getting the virus - whether they are 95, or 15.

Well I would assume that a healthcare worker would have been subject to all the necessary protection during work, and more importantly be cognisant of the need to stay indoors if they feel unwell. The latter bit is important. If a healthcare worker isn't abiding to hygiene practises etc., then we are in deeper trouble.

bladespin

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

How do you know that? You don't. If you don't get infected, it might just be because nobody there has the virus.

There are hundreds of thousands of cases in London alone and thousands of deaths. I am extremely, extremely likely to come into contact with infected people while going out for a walk, or going to the shop, or even going downstairs in my own apartment block. If I can reduce the chances of infection by wearing a mask or otherwise covering my face, why would I not do that?

Nobody know, that's the fact, but I feel quite safe and that's about as good as you can be.

Do whatever helps you get by, if you need to use a mask as a crutch to cope with fear etc, that's fine, just don't suddenly think it's going to stop an infection, that's all.