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 Part II

Tokyo

Continuation of the "Relaxation of restrictions" from here.

Please note that all mod warnings and threadbans carry through from the previous thread.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SAMTALK

Deleted User wrote: »

The economy can also run out of money. At which point we wouldn't have money to pay people or invest in health. Then way more die.

Too many foolish people on here that don't understand the importance of the economy.

Nearly as many people that don't understand how important it is to adhere to regulations

hmmm

Speakerboxx wrote: »

People are not adhering to restrictions anyway. Time to open the floodgates.

Nonsense, the vast majority are.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

The economy will recover. When will the dead recover?

The economy can also run out of money. At which point we wouldn't have money to pay people or invest in health. Then way more die.

Too many foolish people on here that don't understand the importance of the economy.

[Deleted User]

easypazz wrote: »

Did you read the article?

It undermines your argument.

You said:

Will there be an economic downturn globally next year? Yes there will.

The IMF said:

She warned that "global growth will turn sharply negative in 2020,"

Even in the best case the IMF expects only a "partial recovery" next year,

The downturn will happen this year, and output will reach a very low point, but once things reopen, there will be a modest upturn.

The economy will recover. When will the dead recover?

easypazz

gozunda wrote: »

The IMF would beg to disagree with your evident expert knowledge ...

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1129580/

Did you read the article?

It undermines your argument.

You said:

Will there be an economic downturn globally next year? Yes there will.

The IMF said:

She warned that "global growth will turn sharply negative in 2020,"

Even in the best case the IMF expects only a "partial recovery" next year,

The downturn will happen this year, and output will reach a very low point, but once things reopen, there will be a modest upturn.

Rodin

Speakerboxx wrote: »

People are not adhering to restrictions anyway. Time to open the floodgates.

Like saying....
There'll always be ways to outfox airport security.
Might as well not have it

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

Like I said, lame excuses about "Swedish culture" are supposed to explain the discrepancy between 1,000s of deaths and 100,000s of deaths (see above).

Iowa with a population of 3.155 million has had 136 deaths with no lockdown. Its not all isolated farmland either, it has 30 cities.

Handwashing, social distancing and other mitigation strategies play a role in preventing spread but the added edge gained by stopping people from working or seeing people they know may be quite small, especially given that outdoor transmission appears quite low.

There will be scientific investigations into the actual efficacy of the lockdown in time.

Connecticut, 3.5 million, 2,000 deaths.

Who was claiming 100,000's deaths here by the way?

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

Iowa with a population of 3.155 million has had 136 deaths with no lockdown. Its not all isolated farmland either, it has 30 cities.

My partner is from Iowa and I've spent many Christmases there. It might have cities (well, towns really in most cases) but there is a lot of space in those cities. Social distancing is really easy. Buildings are huge - a startup hipster coffee shop in Europe might be crammed into a corner building whereas in Des Moines it is probably spread out over an old industrial warehouse floor. There is just a lot of space - the low deaths are IMO completely explainable by the fact that even city dwellers will be exposed to a far lower viral load

JTMan

snotboogie wrote: »

Normal office work won't be returning next month.

Exactly. According to the Irish Times, reopening offices are in the "later phases" which seem to be in September along with schools. Nobody who is working from home will return to the office anytime soon.

Working in offices, in most cases, is non-essential and should be left until last.

Speakerboxx

gozunda wrote: »

Your logic is truely based on historic levels of ignorance even compared to some of the other contributions on this thread.

The current restrictions are designed to prevent our health service being overwhelmed and to continue to keep down levels of infection in the general population.

That you seemingly cannot appreciate either of those two most basic concepts is truely staggering.

Edit: And yes restrictions will be eased going forward. Will that be because you want it so? No.

People are not adhering to restrictions anyway. Time to open the floodgates.

seamus

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I've seen that being said a few times now. Is there any source for this? Not doubting just wanna know.

It's an embellished narrative that some people have run with.

In the second week of March, the HSE embarked on a programme of freeing up beds in hospitals by discharging or moving patients where possible.

In the case of elderly patients, many were transferred (back) to nursing homes.

This is standard practice and has been done many, many times before in order to free up beds.

Covid-positive patients were NOT transferred. That was one of the explicit reasons that excluded a patient from being transferred.

However, patients who were symptomatic or had been in contact wit a covid case, were eligible for transfer.

Herein lies the rub - there is no evidence that anyone who was transferred, was symptomatic or had contact with a covid patient.

However, the fact that they could have been, has led some nursing homes to lay the blame on infection spread at the door of the HSE. Claiming that they would be covid-free if it were not for the transfers. Many nursing homes operators have a troubled relationship with the HSE, and will relish any chance to get the boot in, whether they have evidence for it or not.

The truth, as usual is somewhere in the middle. It seems likely that a small number of patients with Covid probably did end up in some nursing homes before testing positive. But the virus was already spreading, was already well established in many institutions. So the impact on these transfers is unlikely to have been large.
The main reason it became such a problem in nursing homes was the difficulty of getting staff (thus individual staff members interacting with more patients) and the fact that they were deprioritised from getting supplies of PPE.

Penfailed

easypazz wrote: »

You made a sweeping statement everywhere was jammed.

Not true.

Fair enough. It was a sweeping statement to be fair.

[Deleted User]

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I 100% agree with the lockdown - buys time for health service to flatten curve and prepare for managing the virus for next 2 years.

7 weeks now it's over, time to re-open slowly over the coming months.

They've had enough time - we've done our part.

I agree the time is coming to start to open up, step by step, however what have we actually done? And by we I mean those of us not on the frontline or maintaining critical services. Sit home and watch netflix and post ****e on boards. Maybe do a bit of extra gardening if we have that option. God help us. Our sacrifice will be remembered for generations to come.

gozunda

easypazz wrote: »

No there won't be. Well, its possible but highly unlikely.

The IMF would beg to disagree with your evident expert knowledge ...

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1129580/

growleaves

Like I said, lame excuses about "Swedish culture" are supposed to explain the discrepancy between 1,000s of deaths and 100,000s of deaths (see above).

Iowa with a population of 3.155 million has had 136 deaths with no lockdown. Its not all isolated farmland either, it has 30 cities.

Handwashing, social distancing and other mitigation strategies play a role in preventing spread but the added edge gained by stopping people from working or seeing people they know may be quite small, especially given that outdoor transmission appears quite low.

There will be scientific investigations into the actual efficacy of the lockdown in time.

gozunda

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Might not be nice to say but it's true - you can't lock down 99% of the population and destroy many of their lives for the benefit of 1%.
The majority of our issues with this virus (>50%) are in nursing homes, not general public.
Time to end lockdown and ease back into life starting Monday and over the next few months.

Your logic is truely based on historic levels of ignorance even compared to some of the other contributions on this thread.

The current restrictions are designed to prevent our health service being overwhelmed and to continue to keep down levels of infection in the general population.

That you seemingly cannot appreciate either of those two most basic concepts is truely staggering.

Edit: And yes restrictions will be eased going forward. Will that be because you want it so? No.

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

You are another person who hasn't so much as glanced at a summary of the models you are defending.

The numbers of deaths were not revised downwards because of "the success of the lockdowns".

The original models included predictions about the number of deaths with "optimal mitigation policies" of isolation, quarantining, cocooning etc. (Imperial)

The main defense of the lockdown to date is that the polite Swedish people avoided 100,000s of inevitable deaths by behaving themselves, and that other Northern Europeans are incapable of same.

Tell me what were those optimal mitigation policies that were in place and being modelled when the US and UK rapidly change tack on this when Imperial released their new model? You know the one where they figured they would model the actual virus spreading rather than the seasonal flu. And when they did this can you tell me what measures the US and UK subsequently implemented and if they were greater than those already in place? And when they implemented these additional measure did the true death rate fall short of that modelled prior to implementation? And do you think it is possible these may have had an impact?

is_that_so

hmmm wrote: »

The Irish public have been great at how we responded, but it was only a couple of weeks it was all #stayathome and "clap for carers", now it's "I need a haircut" and "this can't go on much longer".

The Swedes have a very different society and outlook than we have, I expect they can carry on their soft lockdown for a very long time.

I think we've done very well and bit of a whinge is allowed. We are now at a point to ask what now and expect an answer.
I don't doubt the Swedes will, but a model based on a specific national outlook is not going be terribly useful elsewhere.

Theboinkmaster

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Thought as much, you can't back it up. So the lockdown is not killing people as you stated and in fact saving people.

How do you think that 1200 number would look if there was no lockdown? How do you think the hospitals would look right now?

I note you have included future events in your post that we simply do not know how they will play out.

The fact you view people in nursing homes as being on borrowed time is f**king disgusting.

Says it all really.

I never stated I was against the lockdown - see above post.

easypazz

Tell me how wrote: »

America is paying little to no attention to science in many states.

They will be the best guinea pig to watch.

Full lockdown in NYC, lots of deaths.

Minimal restrictions elsewhere.

As New York relaxes will we see new hotspots develop.

It is good that we can watch and learn.

ChikiChiki

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

COVID-19 has only killed about 1,200 in Ireland - over half of which were people in nursing homes on borrowed time anyway.

Compared to lockdown impact:

- people not going to ER/doctors
- people not being let into hospitals for required treatments e.g. cancer
- childline call volume +20%
- violence against women call volume +25%
- suicides due to social isolation and economic recession
- people dropping healthcare due to economic recession
- cuts in health service budgets next year and year after due to economic recession

Think it's pretty obvious.

Thought as much, you can't back it up. So the lockdown is not killing people as you stated and in fact saving people.

How do you think that 1200 number would look if there was no lockdown? How do you think the hospitals would look right now?

I note you have included future events in your post that we simply do not know how they will play out.

The fact you view people in nursing homes as being on borrowed time is f**king disgusting.

Says it all really.

Rodin

SNNUS wrote: »

I agree but those who do not care about disinfecting their hands properly are the same types that ignore the lockdown restrictions, it could go on forever but they will do what the feck they want. A virus will not put manners on some people..

That's the guards/govt/judiciary's job.... and they're not doing it.
People do what they get away with.

is_that_so

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The majority of new cases are in nursing homes etc

Nothing to do with the general public

They originally spread from the community.

hmmm

is_that_so wrote: »

It really just draws attention to the fact that for their approach to work, we all need to be Swedish.

The Irish public have been great at how we responded, but it was only a couple of weeks it was all #stayathome and "clap for carers", now it's "this can't go on much longer" and "you can't lock down 99% of the population and destroy many of their lives for the benefit of 1%".

The Swedes have a very different society and outlook than we have, I expect they can carry on their soft lockdown for a very long time.

Theboinkmaster

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Holy ****, whatever about the rest of your post, the part in bold is striking.

Might not be nice to say but it's true - you can't lock down 99% of the population and destroy many of their lives for the benefit of 1%.

The majority of our issues with this virus (>50%) are in nursing homes, not general public.

Time to end lockdown and ease back into life starting Monday and over the next few months.

Calhoun

I think the whole relaxing restrictions might fall apart when they start doing things like relaxing it on the over 70's ect.

You would swear it was an election time period and they were giving away a sweetener. Allot of people observing restrictions so those vulnerable over 70's can be ok but if they start picking sections of society i can see it unravel very fast.

Tell me how

Long_Wave wrote: »

Gyms are being opened up in America

America is paying little to no attention to science in many states.

Rodin

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The majority of new cases are in nursing homes etc

Nothing to do with the general public

If the nursing homes existed in a closed system then there'd be no problem.
But they don't.

easypazz

gozunda wrote: »

Will there be an economic downturn globally next year? Yes there will.

No there won't be. Well, its possible but highly unlikely.

SusieBlue

showpony1 wrote: »

No wonder Leo is probably cracking up at this stage - TD's pleading with him to let a load of bloody doggos get their hair cut as an essential service.

Another fine example of people trivialising & sneering at other people’s legitimate concerns & worries.
Yeah you’re right, I want lockdown ended purely so I can get my dog a few highlights, I’ll get my nails done and then we’ll probably stop at the pub for a few scoops on our way home :rolleyes:

There was an article in my local paper this week about an elderly women who fell and hurt her hip and is now in hospital, where she is at a high risk of contracting the virus.
She injured herself trying to lift her dog into the bath. Her dog has dermatitis and requires a weekly medicated bath to treat his condition.
Her daughter, who gave the interview to the newspaper, said this was a service usually provided by her dog groomer but as they were closed & she was cocooning she was trying to do it herself.
She won’t be the first or last case of something like that happening. And regardless, if vets are allowed to open then so should groomers.
One is as necessary as the other, which you would understand if you had any experience with animals who have skin conditions or who require regular care.
Now do you see why this is an essential service?