easypazz wrote: » Its a stupid analogy.
Mic 1972 wrote: » This is my favorite to explain the stupidity of relaxing the restrictions The curve is flattening; we can start lifting restrictions now = The parachute has slowed our rate of descent; we can take it off now
Mic 1972 wrote: » What's stupid is dismissing that flattening the curve is the result of restrictions. We haven't landed yet, it's too early to celebrate
drunkmonkey wrote: » The thinking behind flattering the curve was to protect the hospitals, there is no massive surge coming now. We've landed but stupid decision like flying in 200 romains and still allowing more flights in form the UK etc without putting these people in forced isolation for 30 days makes all our efforts pointless. Someone in the thread earlier was coming in from the UK today to go to Clare. It makes a joke of the whole thing, they can take a flight travel the width of the country and I can't go to the park 2.5km away.
pjohnson wrote: » Great way of putting it! Will trigger some though.
the kelt wrote: » It’s funny how the use of words resonate differently with people. I mean the official line always has been “by doing this you are saving lives” it’s a very good message, it’s exactly what people need to hear, psychologically it’s a great message. But somewhere along the way people twisted that to “stay at home or people will die” as per above which although some people think it means the same it really doesn’t, it’s hope versus fear and it’s very deliberate. The fact is it isn’t a competition in regards to what to do next, there is no right or wrong answer, it’s trial and error and will remain that way until a viable vaccine is found. But there also seems to be an idea of lockdown until it’s gone or a vaccine, that was never the case anywhere. At some stage there will be tough decisions to be made where relaxation is going to happen and is going to cost the lives of some people unfortunately but that seems hard to grasp which is understandable but unfortunately a reality which generally leads to accusations of choosing economics over life etc. There ain’t going to be any winners out of this no matter what happens.
pjohnson wrote: » Do you know why there is no surge?
lord quackinton wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0419/1132490-transplant-surgery-paused/ And the damage done by this lockdown The lockdowners don’t get it , they are backing a plan that will actually ruin children’s lives
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » Indeed. It already has triggered the usual suspects on here.
drunkmonkey wrote: » We ignored the nursing homes. It was always going to kill the old if allowed, we just let it happen. We didn't need lockdown in the communist sense, distancing is enough along with other hygine practices.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Untrue.
bettyoleary wrote: » Yeah where will you go first with your first weeks wages Covid Arms or the Bat and Pangolin??:rolleyes:
road_high wrote: » Nursing homes and other care settings have been our downfall alright. Hopefully they've tackled that head on now.
BanditLuke wrote: » Brilliant. Says it all about the open it all up crowd.
Spencer Brown wrote: » Who's asking for "it all" to be opened up?
JRant wrote: » Spot on. All the doom and gloom media messages can't be just erased from people's memories. "Stay at home or people will die" will suddenly become "head out but be careful". I know a few grandparents that are bloody terrified at the moment, afraid to leave their own houses in case "it" gets them. Even cowering away from their own grandchildren. The mental health toll of this will be huge and will still be with us long after this virus has left us.
trapp wrote: » I think Professor Nolan had a good way of putting it. There is no such thing as simply lifting restrictions more finding another way to live. For example schools will reopen in time but not as before, maybe smaller classes, less days each week for children and so on. For example people could be allowed back on to beaches etc but numbers limited and not congregate in groups. For example workplaces could reopen with a percentage wfh each day. For example hair salons etc may reopen but masks might be worn by the stylist and people won't attend if they feel unwell. For example sport may resume again but no handshakes, no congregating in changing rooms etc. There would be risk involved but in time they may feel the benefits of playing sport outweigh the risks once the virus is not as widespread For example pubs and bars could reopen in time but at a limited capacity. For example big matches and concerts might have to be for a limited crowd or behind closed doors. As Professor Nolan said not simply lifting restrictions but in time living in a different way.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » Indeed. Lots of people are going to be left with agoraphobia and OCD. I have those anyway, so weirdly it's not going to be that much different and I actually welcome the fact that people are going to be way more careful about hygiene and way less happy to crowd into places, but the majority of people are finding this situation totally alien and terrifying. Once the idea that everything is 'dirty' and 'dangerous' grips your mind, it's extremely difficult to get rid of.
VonLuck wrote: » It's a terrible analogy. It suggests that if restrictions are relaxed it's guaranteed failure, which is just ludicrous.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a76cb640f98d9dcd3d00bb9366a306.svg)
