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

Strumms

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Social distancing is also impossible in schools. Pubs/Restaurants/Schools are all risky in the same way

Yep, and all closed the same way.

[Deleted User]

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Social distancing is also impossible in schools. Pubs/Restaurants/Schools are all risky in the same way

Neither of them will be open anytime soon I reckon.

seamus

stephenjmcd wrote: »

This simply put cant go on much longer, theres not a chance the state can afford that long term

The ECB will look after it. The US treasury and the ECB are going to be printing money just like countries do in wartime.

Many countries are looking at taking this opportunity to move from the emergency payment model to universal basic income.

This can go on long-term, and probably will.

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.

Indeed, I don't disagree with any of your post. I was talking about the kind of people who think there should be a public health advisory, but people should be allowed to make their own choices about whether or not they go out, whether or not they open their businesses, etc.

Ultimately the main falling point here is "supporting my family". I absolutely appreciate that many people will risk catching the virus in order to do so. I would too.

As a species we're at a point where there's no actual need for anyone to go hungry. "I need to get out to work to support my family" doesn't need to exist any more.

And if there are some people in that situation, even after the Covid payments, the government should be stepping in to help them.

Nobody should be trying to get out to do non-essential work out of economic necessity. Everyone wants to work, but if it's non-essential then it needs to be balanced against the public interest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Cases per million is a way to check who well a country's measures are working

But only if you know what the rate should be.

A country doing no tests, has zero cases per million. A country testing a third of the population has 4,000 cases per million. A country testing everyone but not actually imposing any restrictions, could have 8,000 cases per million.

In conjunction with other figures, it has some value. On its own, it's basically worthless because we don't have any frame of reference. We know that any new flu strain, for example, will produce around 80,000 cases per million on a typical year. And thus, we could determine the effectiveness of vaccinations or other measures against that 80k figure.
We don't know what the "typical" rate is for covid, and therefore on its own cases/million is meaningless.

Mic 1972

Strumms wrote: »

People when under the influence of alcohol suffer from impaired decision making. That we don’t need at a time like this.

Social distancing would be near impossible and a surefire way to ensure spreading.

Anyone been to the Mater A&E on a Saturday night will see that many of the attendees are there all or in part due to alcohol, drugs or a combination thereof.

We cannot afford to put that kind of pressure on the health system or the country.

Social distancing is also impossible in schools. Pubs/Restaurants/Schools are all risky in the same way

Mic 1972

Akabusi wrote: »

I'm not sure of the adverse effects it has on kids with asthma? In Europe I think the youngest person to have died was 12 although i don't recall what condition they had if any. I may be wrong but I'm not hearing of kids ending up in ICU (I hope i'm not wrong). Maybe just open the primary schools, if we take it that it doesn't affect pre-teen kids too severely. I had the virus btw and as did my 6 year old, he had worse symptoms than i had but nothing that required a doctor or hospitalisation thankfully.
Yes the numbers of people mixing will be big but it has to happen at some point and if all these people are young and healthy it will have very little affect on them. There is already a relaxation in other countries for construction and industry and I have the feeling this will be coming here two on the 5th May, that IMO is no different to the schools opening.

closing schools isn't meant to protect kids only. It's meant to protect everyone
If kids infect one another in school they will infect anybody else who is around them at home

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really see the major problem with pubs when compared to schools, workplaces, and public transport.

Why are they so much worse?

People when under the influence of alcohol suffer from impaired decision making. That we don’t need at a time like this.

Social distancing would be near impossible and a surefire way to ensure spreading.

Anyone been to the Mater A&E on a Saturday night will see that many of the attendees are there all or in part due to alcohol, drugs or a combination thereof.

We cannot afford to put that kind of pressure on the health system or the country.

Mic 1972

seamus wrote: »

Which is precisely why Iceland provides an excellent metric against which to compare the rest of Europe. Because it tested indiscriminately, effectively eliminating selection bias from the results.

Selection bias will provide an artificially low - and therefore worthless - cases/million value. And virtually all countries are engaging in selection bias right now, because this is not a scientific study.

We don't know the final numbers on Covid-19. We don't know what to expect in terms of how many it can infect if left to run its course, we don't know how easily it spreads from person to person in a typical scenario.

We have no idea what cases/million number is the "right" one.

Thus, as a metric it's a useful note, but cannot really be used to derive any meaningul data in terms of the effectiveness of public health measures.

That's why nobody is talking about cases per million. That's why the R0 value and the day-to-day percentages are all anyone is talking about. Because they're the only way to track whether we're having an impact.

When we get past this and there's more widespread testing carried out and hundreds of thsouands of studies done over the next two decades, we will find out what cases/million should actually mean in the context of coronavirus. But right now, we don't have that. If our new cases rate is not growing, and our death rate is dropping, then we're going the right direction. At this point cases/million merely indicates that we're doing a better and better job of capturing infections.

You don't have to look far to find out why cases/million is not a useful metric. The UK has half the cases/million that we do, and twice the deaths/million that we do.

I would disagree with that

Iceland represents an excellent case study, due to the peculiarities we both highlighted. But it's hardly comparable to the rest of the other countries for the same reasons.

Cases per million is an excellent metrics for comparison when the test rate is in a similar range, which is why UK shouldn't be compared to Ireland since they have tested little compared to us. Our testing rate ranks among the likes of Italy/Germany/Denmark/Portugal, we should compare our daily increases per million and total cases per million to these countries

Lackey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't know how your going to get kids back, my 5yr old is here refusing to go for a walk up the mountain because the virus is outside in the air. All air is bad now according to him.

No 5 year old should be thinking like this
Turn off the tv and stop talking about it in front of them.

facehugger99

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

A virus that is going to end up with a fatality rate of less than 0.4%, concentrated among the very, very old and very, very sick.

There will be a serious inquiry into the over-reactive response to this in the coming years.

Akabusi

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?!

I'm not sure of the adverse effects it has on kids with asthma? In Europe I think the youngest person to have died was 12 although i don't recall what condition they had if any. I may be wrong but I'm not hearing of kids ending up in ICU (I hope i'm not wrong). Maybe just open the primary schools, if we take it that it doesn't affect pre-teen kids too severely. I had the virus btw and as did my 6 year old, he had worse symptoms than i had but nothing that required a doctor or hospitalisation thankfully.
Yes the numbers of people mixing will be big but it has to happen at some point and if all these people are young and healthy it will have very little affect on them. There is already a relaxation in other countries for construction and industry and I have the feeling this will be coming here two on the 5th May, that IMO is no different to the schools opening.

yourdeadwright

Irish Aris wrote: »

I think the whole pub situation will need a different approach, similar to what we do in the continent, as many other posters have said.

I'll give an example from my home country, Greece. When you go out in a pub (and in some-not many bars as well), the norm would be that you sit down on a table. The tables wouldn't always be 2 meters apart from each other but I guess this can be managed. In Greece, the concept of a pub would normally involve food. If you want to go out just drinking, you go to a bar. So I reckon there is some room to reconsider things here in Ireland. I would agree that profits wouldn't be guaranteed, so pub owners would have to consider it on a case by case basis.

The ones I consider even worse are nightclubs (like the ones in Dublin Harcourt street with the long queues). I'd say they are even lower than pubs in the reopening list. In general the whole clubbing scene could suffer a lot.

Anyway, not that it matters to me personally. Even if the pubs were to re-open anytime soon, it is the least of my priorities. There are things that I miss more than going for a drink.

Its like that in Canada,
You will see a Que outside pubs and its because you are not allowed in if you are not seated ,So people que for tables and seat to come availably,

I don't think that will or ever should happen here , lets not loose the things we love over this , lets just make sure we go wait until its safe again and that coming form someone who is a pub once or twice a year,

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s not long term. The €350 is an emergency payment for up to 12 weeks.

Yes I know that, the thing is what happens after 12 weeks

Strumms

Del Griffith wrote: »

And what, savagely beat them with batons for giving a hug? Is this what it's come to?

No, not to savagely beat them, :rolleyes: but issue a nice sizable fine would be a nice deterrent and a ways to focus attention and remind the needy that the needs of the overall wellbeing of the state and its people come first ahead of the needs and wants of needy individuals who without a thought will gleefully disregard social distancing and the health and wellbeing of the nation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Which is precisely why Iceland provides an excellent metric against which to compare the rest of Europe. Because it tested indiscriminately, effectively eliminating selection bias from the results.

Selection bias will provide an artificially low - and therefore worthless - cases/million value. And virtually all countries are engaging in selection bias right now, because this is not a scientific study.

We don't know the final numbers on Covid-19. We don't know what to expect in terms of how many it can infect if left to run its course, we don't know how easily it spreads from person to person in a typical scenario.

We have no idea what cases/million number is the "right" one.

Thus, as a metric it's a useful note, but cannot really be used to derive any meaningul data in terms of the effectiveness of public health measures.

That's why nobody is talking about cases per million. That's why the R0 value and the day-to-day percentages are all anyone is talking about. Because they're the only way to track whether we're having an impact.

When we get past this and there's more widespread testing carried out and hundreds of thsouands of studies done over the next two decades, we will find out what cases/million should actually mean in the context of coronavirus. But right now, we don't have that. If our new cases rate is not growing, and our death rate is dropping, then we're going the right direction. At this point cases/million merely indicates that we're doing a better and better job of capturing infections.

You don't have to look far to find out why cases/million is not a useful metric. The UK has half the cases/million that we do, and twice the deaths/million that we do.

Cases per million is a way to check who well a country's measures are working; deaths per million is only an indicator of how well a country's health system is coping with the caseload it's got.

seamus

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Iceland shouldn't be compared to the rest of Europe because they tested a third of the entire population

Which is precisely why Iceland provides an excellent metric against which to compare the rest of Europe. Because it tested indiscriminately, effectively eliminating selection bias from the results.

Selection bias will provide an artificially low - and therefore worthless - cases/million value. And virtually all countries are engaging in selection bias right now, because this is not a scientific study.

We don't know the final numbers on Covid-19. We don't know what to expect in terms of how many it can infect if left to run its course, we don't know how easily it spreads from person to person in a typical scenario.

We have no idea what cases/million number is the "right" one.

Thus, as a metric it's a useful note, but cannot really be used to derive any meaningul data in terms of the effectiveness of public health measures.

That's why nobody is talking about cases per million. That's why the R0 value and the day-to-day percentages are all anyone is talking about. Because they're the only way to track whether we're having an impact.

When we get past this and there's more widespread testing carried out and hundreds of thsouands of studies done over the next two decades, we will find out what cases/million should actually mean in the context of coronavirus. But right now, we don't have that. If our new cases rate is not growing, and our death rate is dropping, then we're going the right direction. At this point cases/million merely indicates that we're doing a better and better job of capturing infections.

You don't have to look far to find out why cases/million is not a useful metric. The UK has half the cases/million that we do, and twice the deaths/million that we do.

Irish Aris

I think the whole pub situation will need a different approach, similar to what we do in the continent, as many other posters have said.

I'll give an example from my home country, Greece. When you go out in a pub (and in some-not many bars as well), the norm would be that you sit down on a table. The tables wouldn't always be 2 meters apart from each other but I guess this can be managed. In Greece, the concept of a pub would normally involve food. If you want to go out just drinking, you go to a bar. So I reckon there is some room to reconsider things here in Ireland. I would agree that profits wouldn't be guaranteed, so pub owners would have to consider it on a case by case basis.

The ones I consider even worse are nightclubs (like the ones in Dublin Harcourt street with the long queues). I'd say they are even lower than pubs in the reopening list. In general the whole clubbing scene could suffer a lot.

Anyway, not that it matters to me personally. Even if the pubs were to re-open anytime soon, it is the least of my priorities. There are things that I miss more than going for a drink.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

But, sure, most scientists aren’t going to be known by the general public. Do you expect name recognition for experts on any given topic?

easypazz

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I have a fair understanding of data as it's my daily job :-) thanks

Why are you calling historical data "not good news" then?

A lot of these tests are weeks old and most people have either recovered or passed away, so not really relevant to today and tomorrow.

What matters is the ICU situation, and the number of new confirmed cases each day in the last few days, and how many we get in the next 7 days etc.

Cork Boy 53

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

This is actually very good news for climate change activists.

JRant

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?!

Well, the next logical step is to look at the many 100s of thousands already going about their daily life working in "essential" services. Are we seeing a huge increase in clusters based on this? If we are then maybe there's a reason to keep the schools closed longer.
If not, and the information being given to us suggests that community transmission is almost zero, then maybe it's time to start slowly bringing them back to school on a phased basis.

scamalert

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.

well some are keen on bashing hospitality services but truth is caffes, restaurtants and pubs employ a lot of people that now basically lost their jobs for prob long time, as average place would employ 5-10 people like caffee's etc and this will affect people, sure having less drunks out on streets is great, but the cost of people's livelihood also depend a lot on this.

as been said its hard to speculate or say some will open at x date, as most likely if few do, it wont be massive, since many would of lost tons of cash- rents wages, investments, insurance etc to stay afloat so without government giving some sort of debt write off many wont return to work at half capacity as its simply not viable, since these industries in general operate at split even at best during rush hour times. cant imagine people flocking any such places to sit behind plastic glass windows either, as for many it will be uncertain times and spending will be at all time low going forward, with so many uncertainties.

[Deleted User]

Nermal wrote: »

Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates..........

Global oil demand will plunge a record 9.3 million barrels a day in 2020, wiping out a decade of consumption growth .......... that's not such a bad thing.

[Deleted User]

Nermal wrote: »

...
That's what the lockdown/suppression strategy is, a slide straight into poverty.

Whilst saving lives.

Nermal

Energy is wealth. You're compelled by law to look on from your home as it evaporates.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1250333876716597251

JRant

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We know we can't be rammed on top of each other now and as I said I'm suggesting outdoor only.

I've a lovely beer garden, out the back of the house and have no intentions of going to a pub anytime soon regardless of whether they opened tomorrow or not. However it's good to see some suggestions that may be workable rather than the "keep everything shut" mentality that has crept in.

Mic 1972

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.

I have a fair understanding of data as it's my daily job :-) thanks

Breezin

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'

Unless we want a lockdown until the arrival of a vaccine, this is the only sensible position.

Murple

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.

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?!

johncarner

There is nothing other than half decent compromise solutions until a couple of years after a vaccine is available and been administered to enough people world wide. Until then we just have to figure out what can be done, rather than what can't.

JRant

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.

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'