Relaxation of restrictions Part II

Gael23 wrote: »

If the HSE were fit for purpose what’s happening in nursing homes would never have occurred

How come Sweden and the UK amongst others have experienced the exact same issues in their care homes?
Is that the HSEs fault as well?

This is not a question of whether to lift restrictions or not, both/either is wrong.

Maintaining the restrictions will kill the economy / cause untold harm to people

So will lifting them.

Allow me to point out the main of the many nasty points of this virus again:

44% of transmissions of infections happen before the transmitter shows symptoms, the last day before symptoms show seems to be the most dangerous

4 days after the first show of symptoms, transmission is drastically reduced

1 week after the first show of symptoms, transmission effectively stops

from here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113239698#post113239698

This means, we can almost forget about infected people that show symptoms, we know how to handle them.

What we really need to worry about is everybody else that looks "normal" ...because they could be a highly infectious carrier.
We need to treat everybody "normal" like they are an infectious carrier in order to stay safe.

The easy solution for that is to lock ourselves up until the virus goes away. Except that this isn't the solution because it takes too long and just kills us in a different way.

Another simplistic solution is to suggest lifting all restrictions and let the virus run it's course, 'cause you know it's only like the flu ...except it isn't.

The real solution is to lift some restrictions while keeping others. Allowing us to work and live while staying as safe as possible.

And this is where the real problem lies...a one size fits all guidance from above (be that the government, the WHO or the vintners association) ain't gonna cut it. While the virus is pretty general and undiscerning in its approach, the solution must the total opposite. Clever, well thought out and adapted to the personal circumstances.

Such a solution can not be mandated be government (see the 2 km rule which tries to convey a good idea in principal via an arbitrary figure that makes no sense to most people). Such a solution must be worked out by every individual according to their personal circumstances.

If you can't get to work or do your work without getting too close to other people (or have appropriate protection) ...well then you shouldn't be working.
But everybody else should be able to accept this and support your decision (also financially)

Similarly, if you're currently not allowed to work but you could do so easily without endangering (or be endangered by) anybody else ...you should be let work without getting punished or vilified for braking some arbitrary restriction.


In order to get there though we need leadership, guidance, as much information about the virus as we can get and experts to help us to digest and and use this information correctly.

And that's where I'm stumped ...
How do we make this happen in a age of fake news, (sometimes) incompetent leadership, contradicting experts and (some) people who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.?

How do we get the pub-goers and the bunker-sitters to agree that neither is the correct approach...and how do we get them to agree to a solution that helps everybody while keeping us all safe?


Any ideas?

gozunda wrote: »

Hiw come Sweden and the UK amongst others have experienced the exact same issues in their care homes?
Is that the HSEs fault as well?

I think it's an impossible task to keep this out of care homes.

It's so contagious and once it gets in to those places it spreads so quickly.

I don't blame them particularly - every country has had the same experience.

Great idea by Lithuania as reported by the Guardian here.

Problem - Cafes and restaurants do not have the space to operate social distancing.

Solution - Lithuania has given some public space to bars and cafes to allow physical distancing during lockdown.

Could Ireland learn from this? Could we allow some cafes and restaurants to operate from large well spaced marquee tents in parks?

Spencer Brown wrote: »

What is it with people with Cork in their username? We're not all that bad I promise.

Yeah your right, in Cork we promote allowing people to talk terribly about others. Whether or not you like Harris he’s doing a good job in extremely tough and unprecedented times. Attacking his underlying condition is pathetic and toxic behaviour from someone who is clearly an arrogant keyboard warrior.

JTMan wrote: »

Great idea by Lithuania as reported by the Guardian here.

Problem - Cafes and restaurants do not have the space to operate social distancing.

Solution - Lithuania has given some public space to bars and cafes to allow physical distancing during lockdown.

Could Ireland learn from this? Could we allow some cafes and restaurants to operate from large well spaced marquee tents in parks?

If they had the space for them I suppose but who do you choose and how

lord quackinton wrote: »

The point you are missing on purpose is you are picking what numbers suit you
So Ireland’s are correct?
Why, because it suits your narrative
I assume Italy and Spain there numbers are right too.It’s too easy with people like you

Nope. Incorrect again. I picked no numbers. You did. I pointed out that you cant compare apples and oranges. If you wish to compare - do so with like with for like. But dont expect people to believe bs comparisons.

Trying to make it personal with tla stupid 'people like you' comment doesnt cover that up you know.

peasant wrote: »

How do we make this happen in a age of fake news, (sometimes) incompetent leadership, contradicting experts and (some) people who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.?

How do we get the pub-goers and the bunker-sitters to agree that neither is the correct approach...and how do we get them to agree to a solution that helps everybody while keeping us all safe?


Any ideas?

Good post.

Firstly we need to get rid of all the crap. "Wuhan virus" etc.

Similarly get rid of all the hindsight stuff. "What we should have done was..."

And the political stuff. "FF/FG have....."

And get rid of the off-the-wall stuff. "The virus is no more dangerous than the flu"

And the opinions on science. "I think the virus is transmitted through miasma"

And then the extremes. "Everyone has to stay inside until this is gone". "We can live with 30,000 deaths".

And you end up with a rational, scientific based approach which balances health and economic impact. Or as we like to call it - "Public Health", where we have some very fine doctors and professors who have spent their lives considering these problems and are advising the government on next steps.

peasant wrote: »

This is not a question of whether to lift restrictions or not, both/either is wrong.

Maintaining the restrictions will kill the economy / cause untold harm to people

So will lifting them.

Allow me to point out the main of the many nasty points of this virus again:

44% of transmissions of infections happen before the transmitter shows symptoms, the last day before symptoms show seems to be the most dangerous

4 days after the first show of symptoms, transmission is drastically reduced

1 week after the first show of symptoms, transmission effectively stops

from here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113239698#post113239698

This means, we can almost forget about infected people that show symptoms, we know how to handle them.

What we really need to worry about is everybody else that looks "normal" ...because they could be a highly infectious carrier.
We need to treat everybody "normal" like they are an infectious carrier in order to stay safe.

The easy solution for that is to lock ourselves up until the virus goes away. Except that this isn't the solution because it takes too long and just kills us in a different way.

Another simplistic solution is to suggest lifting all restrictions and let the virus run it's course, 'cause you know it's only like the flu ...except it isn't.

The real solution is to lift some restrictions while keeping others. Allowing us to work and live while staying as safe as possible.

And this is where the real problem lies...a one size fits all guidance from above (be that the government, the WHO or the vintners association) ain't gonna cut it. While the virus is pretty general and undiscerning in its approach, the solution must the total opposite. Clever, well thought out and adapted to the personal circumstances.

Such a solution can not be mandated be government (see the 2 km rule which tries to convey a good idea in principal via an arbitrary figure that makes no sense to most people). Such a solution must be worked out by every individual according to their personal circumstances.

If you can't get to work or do your work without getting too close to other people (or have appropriate protection) ...well then you shouldn't be working.
But everybody else should be able to accept this and support your decision (also financially)

Similarly, if you're currently not allowed to work but you could do so easily without endangering (or be endangered by) anybody else ...you should be let work without getting punished or vilified for braking some arbitrary restriction.


In order to get there though we need leadership, guidance, as much information about the virus as we can get and experts to help us to digest and and use this information correctly.

And that's where I'm stumped ...
How do we make this happen in a age of fake news, (sometimes) incompetent leadership, contradicting experts and (some) people who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.?

How do we get the pub-goers and the bunker-sitters to agree that neither is the correct approach...and how do we get them to agree to a solution that helps everybody while keeping us all safe?


Any ideas?

Sweden, or a tailored version thereof. Measured, mature, targeted, nuanced, flexible application of restrictions where they are demonstrated as necessary and effective.

In other words, as your post wisely understands, the opposite of 'simple', as fetishised by those in thrall to the hammer approach.

trapp wrote: »

Fair enough my man

Can you not reply/post without all the unnecessary condescension. It's really quite obnoxious at this stage.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

266 new cases, 59 dead. Good and bad news.

Good to see cases down

hmmm wrote: »

Good post.

Firstly we need to get rid of all the crap. "Wuhan virus" etc.

Similarly get rid of all the hindsight stuff. "What we should have done was..."

And the political stuff. "FF/FG have....."

And get rid of the off-the-wall stuff. "The virus is no more dangerous than the flu"

And the opinions on science. "I think the virus is transmitted through miasma"

And then the extremes. "Everyone has to stay inside until this is gone". "We can live with 30,000 deaths".

And you end up with a rational, scientific based approach which balances health and economic impact. Or as we like to call it - "Public Health", where we have some very fine doctors and professors who have spent their lives considering these problems and are advising the government on next steps.

I Knew it:P:P

Apologies if this is double-posted... Here's one measure that could go. Plenty of over-70s have obviously worked this out for themselves.

Cocooning by voluntary informed consent or enforced expectation? Time to rethink our treatment of over 70s

Prof. Ronan Collins, consultant physician in geriatric and stroke medicine.