Mic 1972 wrote: » Iceland shouldn't be compared to the rest of Europe because they tested a third of the entire population
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.
Del Griffith wrote: » And what, savagely beat them with batons for giving a hug? Is this what it's come to?
[Deleted User] wrote: » It’s not long term. The €350 is an emergency payment for up to 12 weeks.
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.
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?!
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
stephenjmcd wrote: » This simply put cant go on much longer, theres not a chance the state can afford that long term
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.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Cases per million is a way to check who well a country's measures are working
Mic 1972 wrote: » Social distancing is also impossible in schools. Pubs/Restaurants/Schools are all risky in the same way
normanoffside wrote: » With the talk of Iceland and schools reopening, it should be noted that Iceland never closed it's primary schools That doesn't seem to have had any affect on the spread of the virus at all. They have had very few new cases and no new deaths for several weeks now.
seamus wrote: » 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.
seamus wrote: » As a species we're at a point where there's no actual need for anyone to go hungry.
Cyrus wrote: » but but but killer children spread the deadly disease so you must be making that up, they are also the deadliest carriers, whatever that means.
Dickie10 wrote: » well Harris came out and said it thepubs are dead RIP, long live the cafe/coffee shop were all Europeans now anyway i suppose, the pub culture was our last link to Britain so thank God we wont have anymore boozed up Britain stuff in irish towns on friday/saturday nights. No pubs open til at least early 2021. lets now draw a line under this talk of pubs opening, not happening til this time next year.
normanoffside wrote: » Yep, there is no evidence Children are super spreaders, in fact they might not catch it at all.
Nermal wrote: » Printing money cannot replace lost output. Our policies are making us materially poorer, very quickly. There's no way to avoid that without changing the policy. Of course it can go on, but should it? I have ambitions in life beyond merely avoiding hunger!
Strumms wrote: » I’m accepting that emptier bank accounts are in preference to much fuller graveyards.
facehugger99 wrote: » 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.
Mic 1972 wrote: » 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
