easypazz wrote: » Its who you test though. The early stages here every hypochondriac was being tested. Now we are contact tracing, nursing home patients, healthcare staff IE getting the right people and isolating them. Which is excellent. Thanks for posting this, great to see.
Mic 1972 wrote: » I posted the tests per million in another post Ireland isn't testing as much as the countries in that list, and yet we are seeing in an increase in total cases per million Iceland shouldn't be compared to the rest of Europe because they tested a third of the entire population
easypazz wrote: » She must be the 1000th "expert" to throw their tuppence worth in at this stage. Its amazing how the media keep pulling people that nobody ever heard of into the mainstream, just to throw out more or less the same thing. Gradual easing and possible pullback if things go tits up again.
Mic1972 wrote: I posted the tests per million in another post Ireland isn't testing as much as the countries in that list, and yet we are seeing in an increase in total cases per million
easypazz wrote: » Secondly, remove all high stools from along the bar and allow service area at the bar only. Thirdly, instruct security to only allow in whatever number of people are permitted under whatever regulations are in place. Finally people will start going to bars off peak, even if its just for an hour or two on a week night, hence less crowding. Pubs, restaurants and their customers are entitled to a fair chance to if they can run responsibly.
Charles Babbage wrote: » They have to keep doing this because some people do not seem to have got the message. There are endless people coming forward saying things like open the pubs, it will be back to normal in July, etc without any clear explanation of why things would be different in July than now. Do you have updated data for the number of tests?
iguana wrote: » An awful lot of pubs and restaurants won't be commercially viable in this sort of scenario. They actually rely on the really busy times to ensure their profitability. There are so many posts here detailing how restaurants can open back up if they remove half their tables and make room for social distancing. But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that? For how many publicans will it actually be worthwhile to open up if they have to keep their customers all spaced out? Many publicans and restaurateurs are probably better off at the moment than they will be if they are expected to open up at some fraction of capacity.
Mic 1972 wrote: » Thank god you are not a data analyst, you have zero understanding of data
Augeo wrote: » What would be different if they reopened?
stephenjmcd wrote: » 584,000 now on the govs €350 a week on top of the 212,000 that were already on the live register. 796,000 totally reliant on the state for income. This simply put cant go on much longer, theres not a chance the state can afford that long term
iguana wrote: » But how many restaurants can actually afford to run at half capacity like that?
drunkmonkey wrote: » We know we can't be rammed on top of each other now and as I said I'm suggesting outdoor only.
seamus wrote: » The kind of person who thinks, "I should be allowed take the risk to get infected if I choose to", is the same person who will refuse to self-isolate if they do get sick. The legal lockdown exists precisely because of the "it should be my choice" gombeens.
Akabusi wrote: » What harm would opening the schools do? The kids would just be going home after school, if they catch it they will only spread it in the household. There would need to be exceptions of course for any kids with a underlying condition, households with vulnerable people, healthcare workers and retirement home staff. I'm now off the opinion that we have to learn to live with this thing, as we don't know when or if we'll have a vaccine. This virus is here to stay so we have to let it spread at some point in a controlled as possible manner. Healthy kids and their healthy parents are not going to topple the healthcare system.
JRant wrote: » I disagree Seamus. I'm more on the side of easing restrictions, in a controlled manner, while at the same time will be doing everything possible to limit exposure because I have very vulnerable people to look after also. It's entirely reasonable to hold both ideas at the same time and I believe the majority of people are in the same boat. Nearly everyone I know has elderly parents or knows someone with an underlying condition. We want to make sure they are kept safe. I also understand that I'm lucky enough to have kept my job during this and have the luxury of WFH permanently if required. An awful lot of people don't have this and need to get back out working to support their families. Thee will be an increase in cases once these restrictions start to be rolled back but they were never about stopping this virus, more to allow the HSE ramp up capacity. It seems we have the capacity element covered for now so we need to move on to the next phase and begin getting back to some sort of normality. I'd rather we had to roll back at some stage in the future based on actual data then have a permanent lockdown implemented on the basis of 'what ifs'
is_that_so wrote: » Your own use of data is eh flexible. Some individuals use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts — for support rather than for illumination.
Nermal wrote: » ... That's what the lockdown/suppression strategy is, a slide straight into poverty.
Nermal wrote: » Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates..........
Murple wrote: » Kids with an underlying condition? That would include all children with asthma, roughly 1 in 10 children. Consider a girl's primary school with children from 150 households. That wouldn't be a huge school by any means. Let's say each household is on average 4 people. That's 600 people. And let's imagine there's 50 of those 600 are secondary pupils in other schools and mixing with people from another 250 households. And 100 are boys going to a boys primary school and mixing with boys from an additional 150 households. And we better add in the school staff from each of these schools now connected to the original single school- principals, class teachers, LS teachers, SNA, secretary, caretaker etc. and their households. That's an awful lot of people who could be exposed and that's with the presumption that every household is keeping to itself. Add in those where people are mixing with others through work or shopping. A percentage of even healthy people have been badly affected and have required hospitalisation. But sure what harm would opening schools do?!
Nermal wrote: » Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates.https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1250333876716597251
Mic 1972 wrote: » I have a fair understanding of data as it's my daily job :-) thanks
easypazz wrote: » She must be the 1000th "expert" to throw their tuppence worth in at this stage. Its amazing how the media keep pulling people that nobody ever heard of into the mainstream, just to throw out more or less the same thing.