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.
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?
Ace2007 wrote: » Sorry i meant 23 year olds - which is fact.
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.
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.
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?
Ace2007 wrote: » But you don't need to feel unwell to have the virus - and that is the key point that people are missing.
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.
Ace2007 wrote: » B As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And yet people still die doing it. Go figure.
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. 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 wrote: » The point is that saying we should all be locked down as it might save a 23 y.o.'s life is nonsense. No matter what happens people die for all sort of reasons every day and we, as a society, just need to suck it up and move on.
polesheep wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
Ace2007 wrote: » You simple don't get it - if everyone practices social distancing etc when restriction are eased, why then stop a vulnerable person from also getting on with their lives. Just answer that question - if society is responsible and thinks of everyone we should reduce the risks of the virus spreading - no?
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.
Wibbs wrote: » There aren't enough WTF and facepalm memes to go around. It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. How in perdition's name do you think someone coughing, sneezing, even breathing on you can infect you? Magic pixies? Why in perdition's name do you think healthcare workers wear PPE that massively reduce the risk of inhaling this not in the air virus? They do it for the lulz?
Studies to date suggest that the virus that causes COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through contact with respiratory droplets rather than through the air. See previous answer on “How does COVID-19 spread?”
Wibbs wrote: » On this particular line of WTF and lack of basic understanding and the sheer confidence exhibited, which is gobsmacking: From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway. The "very simple fact" :rolleyes:. Here comes the science bit: The R0 number is the average number of people with no immunity one person can infect. This varies with circumstance. So in say some commune of a hundred people, or somewhere like a nursing home that number goes way up. On the other hand in a sparsely inhabited area that number goes down. The average R0 value for Covid 19 is 2 to 2.5. That is one infected person on average infects 2 people. The R0 for seasonal influenza is around 1.2. Covid 19 is nearly twice as infectious as flu. Not "incredibly low anyway". There aren't enough WTF and facepalm memes to go around. It's in "the air" already FFS. It's an aerosolised virus. How in perdition's name do you think someone coughing, sneezing, even breathing on you can infect you? Magic pixies? Why in perdition's name do you think healthcare workers wear PPE that massively reduce the risk of inhaling this not in the air virus? They do it for the lulz?
bladespin wrote: » Really, where on earth did I say this wasn't serious, or play down the virus in any way??? Point lout just one post and you can have your farm back.
