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

Cupatae

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The meaning of the word indefinite:

"lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time".

https://www.google.com/search?q=indefinite&oq=indefinite&aqs=chrome..0j69i57j0l6.3711j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You do realise that me and you get no say on the date its lifted? do you want a date for arguement sake? May 5th with clear well defined plans and the backing of health officials

Happy?

robinph

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Sweating pouring from people all over the place. Touching equipment that other people after them will use. Shared showers and changing rooms. It would be almost a perfect breeding ground to spread the virus.

What is the risk with sweat for this virus? How much time are you spending in close contact with other people in the changing rooms? Does the virus linger under a moving stream of hot water?

Xertz

Ace2007 wrote: »

I suppose the only real way would be to have a limit number of people in a pub at any one time - similar to that as started by fire marshals (i think), i.e. a club can have no more than 900 people for instance. Any more and then could be prosecuted - just need to ensure what ever the penalties are, that they are tough enough for the pub to ensure people comply in the first place.

If pubs are faced with the situation of having say 40% of it's trade, or a risk that we could end up in "lock down" again and they have to shut - i think they will try to learn to run at 40%, or close down altogether.

The problem wouldn’t be the numbers in that case it’s the distancing and when you add alcohol and atmosphere, the distancing element is likely to be gone.

It’s a very difficult one as I can’t see people being responsible enough after a few pints to be relied on to be reasonable. You’re looking at people with their inhibitions lowered by alcohol.

Also the lack of the Friday and Saturday night brawls is probably having a huge impact on A&E capacity.

We will have to reopen them eventually but it seems very low priority, if you consider the probably tens of billions it would cost if we have to relockdown as a result of a spike again.

There’s a definite hierarchy of what needs to and is safe to reopen with extreme caution and that probably means low risk things where you’re likely to be able to get calmer behaviour - offices, retail, cafes, restaurants all seem like far more likely spaces to be opened sooner than pubs and clubs.

We have to be realistic about any plans on a cost:benefit basis and risk:benefit basis. We all like a few pints but if it sends us back to another spike, I’m definitely willing to wait and even support pubs financially for a few more months to keep them mothballed and ready to roll when it is safe.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then, as such, you support an indefinitely (mostly) closed economy. If you can't give some clear date then we are shutdown indefinitely.

you say a mostly closed economy - what is your proof of that?

over 75% of workers are still in employment is some shape or form. If you want a job tomorrow - there are plenty available.

This idea that the economy is on hold, is really in people's heads, large % of the work population are still working, public servants are still getting paid full wages -

Delivery companies can't keep up with demand, it's taken longer to get online deliverys now. Some sectors are booming more than ever before.

lainey_d_123

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's a recurring incident.

Gagnelt, a university town in western Germany was randomly tested and found to have a 15% infection rate, althoguh only 2% had tested for the virus.

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-test-german-town-shows-15-percent-infection-rate/

Herd immunity might have been happening anyway. But even if it is represtative of the virus as a whole, I think flattening the curve will help and was the right move. Just means life will settle back into pre-virus routines a little quicker than we predicted.

This would be the best possible news, really. That a) the death rate is much lower than first thought and b) the infection rate is much higher and this means many more people than thought are (hopefully) immune.

Would be the difference between this being something to look back on this time next year with a cold pint in hand, grateful to sitting in a sunny beer garden with your mates, and years more of lockdown and misery with a shattered economy.

CtevenSrowder

Cupatae wrote: »

I dunno what mental gymnastics you pulled to get to that conclusion but carry on.

The meaning of the word indefinite:

"lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time".

https://www.google.com/search?q=indefinite&oq=indefinite&aqs=chrome..0j69i57j0l6.3711j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Cupatae

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then, as such, you support an indefinitely (mostly) closed economy. If you can't give some clear date then we are shutdown indefinitely.

Better yet, what date do you want the place back in full swing?

Cupatae

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then, as such, you support an indefinitely (mostly) closed economy. If you can't give some clear date then we are shutdown indefinitely.

I dunno what mental gymnastics you pulled to get to that conclusion but carry on.

easypazz

Podge201 wrote: »

Pubs won't be open until 2021.

Official source?

Or is it something you just made up?

CtevenSrowder

Cupatae wrote: »

When the health officials back it and we have a clear well defined plan on how to lift em with long term goals in mind.

Then, as such, you support an indefinitely (mostly) closed economy. If you can't give some clear date then we are shutdown indefinitely.

Ace2007

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's doable, especially if the place has a beergarden - not easy though. Question is, how do you enforce it?

I suppose the only real way would be to have a limit number of people in a pub at any one time - similar to that as started by fire marshals (i think), i.e. a club can have no more than 900 people for instance. Any more and then could be prosecuted - just need to ensure what ever the penalties are, that they are tough enough for the pub to ensure people comply in the first place.

If pubs are faced with the situation of having say 40% of it's trade, or a risk that we could end up in "lock down" again and they have to shut - i think they will try to learn to run at 40%, or close down altogether.

WhiteMemento9

robinph wrote: »

What is the risk from using gym equipment?

Sweating pouring from people all over the place. Touching equipment that other people after them will use. Shared showers and changing rooms. It would be almost a perfect breeding ground to spread the virus.

robinph

Reganio 2 wrote: »

Very strange gym you go to if people dont sweat.

Is the virus present in sweat?

Is the virus absorbed through the skin?

Do you lick other people's sweat from gym equipment?

CtevenSrowder

Cupatae wrote: »

Alcohol and following strict rules and guidelines have historically never went well together..be an interesting one to enforce.

It'll never work once people get drunk, with few exceprtions. And would be nightmare to try and enforce. Would lead to arguments imo, which are always a dangerous thing with alcohol on board.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cupatae wrote: »

Alcohol and following strict rules and guidelines have historically never went well together..be an interesting one to enforce.

This is it: judgement is not the best after a few pints. Woudln't want to be the barstaff telling people to move further apart.

Cupatae

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When do you think restrictions should start being lifted?

When the health officials back it and we have a clear well defined plan on how to lift em with long term goals in mind.

WhiteMemento9

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's doable, especially if the place has a beergarden - not easy though. Question is, how do you enforce it?

Even if it was doable when people are relatively sober that whole etiquette would break down fairly quickly as people inhibtions become lower with alcohol. There just isn't any solution that makes pubs workable.

Cupatae

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's doable, especially if the place has a beergarden - not easy though. Question is, how do you enforce it?

Alcohol and following strict rules and guidelines have historically never went well together..be an interesting one to enforce.

CtevenSrowder

BanditLuke wrote: »

Who said indefinitely?

When do you think restrictions should start being lifted?

Widdensushi

robinph wrote: »

Nobody is chatting to each other in close contact in a gym. You can easily stay meters apart from each other and have zero contact.

Pubs are designed for people to be in close contact and chatting to each other. That is where the infections will occur, not from sweaty gym equipment.

you would want to do a thorough clean before using each exercise machine

Reganio 2

robinph wrote: »

That would be a very strange pub that you frequent where people remain 2 meters apart.

What is the risk from using gym equipment?

Very strange gym you go to if people dont sweat.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

robinph wrote: »

That would be a very strange pub that you frequent where people remain 2 meters apart.

What is the risk from using gym equipment?

It's doable, especially if the place has a beergarden - not easy though. Question is, how do you enforce it?

BanditLuke

awec wrote: »

Having an economy so that people are able to pay taxes to actually fund a health service is pretty important in terms of helping us get over this.

The idea that we can indefinitely fund a health service, pay doctors and nurses, pay for PPE, pay for additional ICU beds, pay for any future covid treatment, purchase any future covid vaccine and pay the 350 covid dole while also funding all the other essential government departments with a half-dead economy is fantasy stuff.

There is a cost to lockdown, an enormous one.

Who said indefinitely?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lord quackinton wrote: »

More bad news for the lockdown Nazis

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/17/health/santa-clara-coronavirus-infections-study/index.html

New test that give results for those who have it or EVER HAD IT
Anti body test if even virus is gone from the body

Good news is it is not deadly as thought
Death rate now no more deadly then common flu
contact tracing and testing and lockdowns cannot possibly work as the numbers who will get it is way higher than thought

This study shows we have shut down the economy for nothing

I am off for a long run in the woods with my dog

That's a recurring incident.

Gagnelt, a university town in western Germany was randomly tested and found to have a 15% infection rate, althoguh only 2% had tested for the virus.

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-test-german-town-shows-15-percent-infection-rate/

Herd immunity might have been happening anyway. But even if it is represtative of the virus as a whole, I think flattening the curve will help and was the right move. Just means life will settle back into pre-virus routines a little quicker than we predicted.

alwald

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes we can all agree with that, it just feels like some posters try to turn anything postive into negative. That graph that was posted was really positive news.

I think only myself and Ace2007 commented on the graph and I don't see any negativity in relation to our posts. Unless if you think that erring on the side of caution is negative.

robinph

Reganio 2 wrote: »

You can make a meter gap between everyone in a pub theoretically. But people using the same equipment in a gym surely cant be good.

That would be a very strange pub that you frequent where people remain 2 meters apart.

What is the risk from using gym equipment?

Cupatae

Reganio 2 wrote: »

You can make a meter gap between everyone in a pub theoretically. But people using the same equipment in a gym surely cant be good.

Cross contamination in a gym would be crazy i dont think they ll be opening for a long while they could be in the same bracket as pubs. Hopefully not tho.

BanditLuke

Ace2007 wrote: »

@GazzaL must have missed that part - he read what he wanted to read and ignored the rest obviously.

He's busy checking in for his Ryanair flight to Costa Del Sun.

Cut him some slack.

niallo27

alwald wrote: »

Good new indeed but we can't start drawing conclusions from it as it's too early, BTW this is the interpretation of the experts too.

We all want to hear good news about quick testing, fall in deaths, fall in ICU...but we also want a gradual and calculated lifting of the measures to not erase any progress made so far.

Yes we can all agree with that, it just feels like some posters try to turn anything postive into negative. That graph that was posted was really positive news.

Reganio 2

robinph wrote: »

Nobody is chatting to each other in close contact in a gym. You can easily stay meters apart from each other and have zero contact.

Pubs are designed for people to be in close contact and chatting to each other. That is where the infections will occur, not from sweaty gym equipment.

You can make a meter gap between everyone in a pub theoretically. But people using the same equipment in a gym surely cant be good.