omeara1113 wrote: » If the deaths and the number of cases keep rising like yesterday it's hard to see any easing of restrictions
Spencer Brown wrote: » It's hard to know if you are serious or an idiot
Augeo wrote: » As of 22 April, the Department of Health has confirmed 16,671 cases and 769 deaths, 4.6%. Are people actually reading this?
BanditLuke wrote: » He is spot on with his assertion.
Supercell wrote: » Your missing my point (which has zero to do about jogging actually - some people here dont seem to believe that there are more on the streets than earlier in the lockdown, thats not the case), my point is that people are increasing ignoring the lockdown rules and this longer that goes on the more that's going to be the case. They are far too restrictive, there needs to be a better way. Sweden seem to be doing alright without such draconian measures, perhaps we should be looking to their approach?
begbysback wrote: » The restrictions were put in place out of fear of the unknown, now we know a lot more about its impact, we know where the worse affected are, and therefore we can put measures into place in specific areas, we know what to do if we are infected, we know the precautions are working, we know if there is a sudden spike when restrictions are lifted then we may need to go back to the current regime. We now know we have to live with the virus, so ultimately we should have a choice of how to live with it.
Nermal wrote: » Quoting fatality rates based on positive tests. That's a block.
Deleted User wrote: » Ireland is an odd country. Masks are too weird and people who think social distancing should last longer are called lockdown merchants.
Augeo wrote: » The article was based on deaths v confirmed cases. Block away.
Deleted User wrote: » Which is a nonsense number
Ms2011 wrote: » They're not closed, I was there on Monday
normanoffside wrote: » 740 of the new cases in the past 2 days were in Nursing homes. Please read this Lockdown Brigadehttps://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1253232672345817088
Merry Prankster wrote: » Even if, with the benefit of hindsight, we learn that the global lockdowns went too far, they were based upon current best medical knowledge and practice. It they hadn't been introduced and the death toll were much higher, the same critics would be berating governments for not taking it seriously enough. It's easy to forget just how uncertain everything was at the beginning. But sure hindsight is a wonderful thing - if you'd had it a while ago, you might have been able to modify previous comments by yourself, like this one from the 10th March: ...or this one, from the same day... ...or this one, from the 14th March...
Retr0gamer wrote: » Sweden has had a massive spike in death that are officially not due to corona virus outside of the mean that is expected for this time of the year and outside of the trend for the last few years. They are misreporting deaths and not attributing then to corona. The economist had a great article on this. Sweden is a disaster and their nursing homes are being ravaged but not being reported as corona related.
Gregor Samsa wrote: » Not that I necessarily agree with the term, but the person above who was responded to with the term "lockdown merchants" said "it's hard to see any easing of restrictions". That's a very differen thing from just thinking that social distancing should last longer. Lets not confuse the terminology. It would be possible - and it's indeed highly likely to occur - that we could have an easing of the restrictions and still have social distancing. It's the physical interaction between people that spreads this disease - not the distance you travel from your house or what kind of shop you enter.
KrustyUCC wrote: » Still not happy with the increase in figures but nursing home clusters affecting the numbers makes sense to me I still would appeal to all to follow restrictions up to the 5th I'm one who really wants some easing of the restrictions so we have a week to keep the heads down
Strumms wrote: » Very odd..I think it comes from nothing even economic but the headless attention seeking needy fûckwits who get put in a massive tailspin by the very idea that they cannot go and meet people, cannot travel to see people, cannot talk to people face to face... they are crawling on the fûcking ceiling and threats to break the restrictions are all they can muster... It’s been spelt out very clearly that the fastest pathway to this being fixed is by everyone sucking it up, dealing with restrictions, playing their part by being disciplined ... being a bit bored, being a bit lonely, whatever but being very much alive... happy and content too that these temporary feelings and emotions will pass with these restrictions and we’ll win this fight and keep people alive...
normanoffside wrote: » Yep, we need to get on with things while maintaining social distancing policies. That's what we were doing for 2 weeks before the 'lockdown'. Is there any proof that the stricter measures were more successful than the previous ones? I can't see any reason why some sports like for example, Tennis, Golf, fishing and others can't be allowed to resume because they can easily be played with social distancing in place.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » And don't forget saying things like "people wont put up with it much more" while sat at home on their laptops like the rest of us