_Kaiser_ wrote: » It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions. Leo gives a a good speech (written by a better writer) and backs it up with a media campaign and snappy slogan (STAY AT HOME), and some think it's the apocalypse and the end of everything if they step beyond an arbitrary (and largely misunderstood) 2km limit. Some facts.. - Corona is going nowhere in the short/medium term.. True - People will continue to get sick and some will die.. Sadly, also true - Some people are more at risk than others.. Again. True - HOWEVER, an overwhelming majority of people will get it and recover or not even know they had it in the first place - The long term mental, social and financial health of all these individuals and the State requires that a balance be struck between the "at risk" group, and the majority - This means that we will continue to protect the vulnerable people as best we can, but also relaxing restrictions so that others can carry out the essential activities we all need - I'll also add that no one is stopping anyone from maintaining a self imposed isolation if they feel more comfortable and secure by doing so, and no one is going to think less of them either But, as I said at the start, somewhere along the road it seems that many have lost the ability to look at a situation for themselves, apply some common sense and accept personal responsibility for their own actions and safety generally - instead waiting for "someone else" to do it for them, regardless of whether that person is any more qualified to do so than they are. This phase of the lockdown is coming to an end. Not because anyone is underestimating this virus, but because the Government and advisors realise that a balance NEEDS to be struck for the benefit of us ALL. But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.
Rainmann wrote: » Totally agree with this. People need to start thinking for themselves, what is sensible and what isn't rather than sheepishly eating up everything the media put out there. This Virus will be with us for quite a while, we need to learn to live with it to the extent that our hospitals are not overrun, but also returning to some level of normality.
Cupatae wrote: » but anyway how do you suggest on returning most the population to normal lives, and stop our hospitals being overrun?
Deleted User wrote: » In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc. It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.
[Deleted User] wrote: » In theory, by hammering it home that if you're obviously at risk, stay at home even when others are allowed to go out and be at work etc. It won't work, though. People like my mother will be going to her dances as soon as she's allowed to. As a retired nurse, she should know better, but it isn't human nature to imprison yourself voluntarily because of something you can't see. Some people can do it but not all.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » It's really striking and concerning at the same time how many are apparently unable to judge a situation for themselves, rather than just blindly following instructions. . . . . But as someone else said above, I do worry about how some will reconcile this uncomfortable truth with what they've been "conditioned" to believe online or from endless media coverage on this topic. I'm not being funny either. I think some will genuinely struggle to adapt to what they see as wild and reckless actions.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » And I don't see anything wrong with that myself as long as they take some precautions and take responsibility for their own actions. If your mam decides to go out, she needs to understand the potential risks. We cannot put the country/planet on "hold" indefinitely. As I said before in this thread, risk acceptance and management will be the order of the day as we try to get things moving again. The alternative is mental, social and economic disaster. As you say, it's not in human nature to accept confinement and isolation, and we all need to have jobs and an income to survive this too.
pgj2015 wrote: » its not like it kills all people over 70 or 80 either, there are people in their 80's, 90's who have survived it, I think even some people over 100. i wouldn't be a prisoner in my own home either.
Blueshoe wrote: » A highly contagious virus doesn't care if you need to get back to work. If there is a second wave of infections and lockdown is needed again you can forget about the economy.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » And if, and indeed when, people get it most will thankfully fully recover or not even realise they had it. It's a serious situation for sure but we need to balance protecting the vulnerable vs protecting the majority - both of whom have different needs here. Your post, while true to a point and well intentioned I'm sure, is exactly the hyperbolic over the top, driven by fear, stuff that should be avoided.
Blueshoe wrote: » Say they open your office back up. One person in the office picks up the virus from someone else down in the supermarket. The infected person spreads the virus and more people in the office become sick. They then give it to their husbands and wives who are also back working and so on and so on. It's a highly contagious virus. Unless you can almost guarantee that nobody who is out and about has the virus how can you stop it spreading again? Back to lockdown. The past however many weeks wasted
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I don't disagree with the point that most people will probably get this thing before it's over. What I disagree with is the idea that the solution is to lockdown a majority of people who will not suffer any lasting effects to protect a minority who can be protected in better and more targeted ways - such as continuing to prioritise online and retail shopping for them to continue to cocoon themselves. But those who can get back to some sort of normality need to, both for their own good, the good of the country, AND to help support those who are vulnerable.
Deleted User wrote: » The default position is that humans gain immunity after fighting off a virus. You don't need evidence that you can't get it again, you need evidence that you can. We have millions of confirmed cases. If reinfection were a major issue, it would be known. Some reports that it may have happened aren't enough.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » One more point before I go to sleep The current restrictions are like the old saying of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but they were justified because this was a new event in Ireland, we weren't yet ready to fully respond, and needed to buy time while simultaneously getting everyone's attention. Mission accomplished on that front. But we now know a bit more, we're identifying the at risk people in our communities and we've ramped up our ability to respond. We also know that all of this costs money and impacts people's wellbeing in other ways beyond physical health or money. As Ads by Google pointed out, we are not built for long term confinement and this will result in long term issues if not resolved soon. We also cannot ignore the rapidly escalating scale of the economic impact. So again, we need to balance the need to protect the vulnerable against the needs of the majority and the country as a whole.
dePeatrick wrote: » https://qz.com/1837798/why-some-covid-19-patients-might-have-tested-positive-twice/ There is not some reports, there are lots, too soon to know yet if we build immunity and if so how long it lasts. In the absence of containment it will not be a second wave, it will be a tsunami.
Cupatae wrote: » What do you think will happen when we lift the restrictions ? Do people gain immunity to the virus or can they be reinfected? What do you propose be done if the infections start claiming again once restrictions are lifted? If the hospitals start to struggle with the increased volume of people coming in because of people going back to normal ? Do we power on protect the economy accept the death in order to protect it ? Do we go back into lockdown ? How would you convince the people like some on this thread that loath having to give up an shred of freedom? How many dead would you be willing to trade for the greater good of the economy and normality of the "majority"?
JRant wrote: » Will there be surge before the tsunami
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
