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

easypazz

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. You would argue with a signpost

I suppose anyone can chose to read that and claim whatever they like then add boldy bits for good measure

But yes It says exactly what I referred to that there will be a global downturn/ recession. And btw I did not mention anything about a recovery. But yes that will follow as well.
Do try and keep up.

You were more specific, you said there will be a downturn next year.

That article does not support your view at all.

It is obvious the downturn is happening this year, right now, with everything closed, and as things reopen the economy improves, albeit at a slow pace.

You did not mention a recovery, because you predicted a downturn next year, it is the IMF who predicted a recovery, next year.

The downturn will be very sharp, followed by a slow recovery, or hopefully even a "V" recovery.

But either way, your claim that there will be a downturn next year, is false.

Do keep up.

Stark

niallo27 wrote: »

Young fella killed himself in our town, home alone. Who knows if his family or friends were around they could have talked him out it.

I've also had a suicide in the extended family circle in the last 2 weeks. Who knows if it would have happened regardless. How the family have been treated in the aftermath is in itself cruel. None of us in the extended family were allowed anywhere near in order to comfort them. A couple of the family who lived near enough (outside the 2km but close enough to avoid checkpoints) were able to call round but good look to anyone in a separate city like myself.

But sure, isn't anyone calling for a review just interested in packed pubs?

is_that_so

thegetawaycar wrote: »

There are plenty of methods to see each other using technology it may not suit all or be ideal but it's an option.

If the business now don't have the money (as you stated) to re-open I'm afraid it's too late for them if they can't get loans etc...

There's actually more pressure and stress in some forms of technology as there is no time when you don't feel you are being watched!

GazzaL

thegetawaycar wrote: »

There are plenty of methods to see each other using technology it may not suit all or be ideal but it's an option.

If the business now don't have the money (as you stated) to re-open I'm afraid it's too late for them if they can't get loans etc...

You haven't a clue about business.

niallo27

thegetawaycar wrote: »

If a business can safely adhere to social distancing, I'd let them open (I'm not the decision maker). If that happens next week or in 3 weeks I'd feel the same.

Who has had their life destroyed by the lockdown?

Young fella killed himself in our town, home alone. Who knows if his family or friends were around they could have talked him out it.

drunkmonkey

smelly sock wrote: »

Amy idea what relaxtions will take place? 2km extended?

I think they need to lock certain locations down at this stage, nobody out past 2km, essential or not. This should be done in cluster areas and properly policed with 24hr checkpoints.
I'm starting to get concerned so called essential businesses with large workforces are a big problem.

gozunda

Breezin wrote: »

This is the sort of sly, insinuating tone of accusation that the lockdown has produced. No one opposing the lockdown or commenting on restrictions can possibly be without guilt. Sinister, and reminiscent of authoritarian regimes throughout history. Why can't you just debate the pros and cons on their merit?

Lol. 'Sly' right back at you Just because you dont like something does not make it any less true

I was replying to a specific comment btw. There was no mention of any "Sinister, and reminiscent of authoritarian regimes throughout history". Start a thread on that if you like.

And yes the issue of the use of the term 'people' by few is glaringly evident

thegetawaycar

GazzaL wrote: »

They can't if they're more than 2km away from each other. That's what the restrictions say.

Businesses aren't allowed to open even if they can implement social distancing. It takes money to get businesses going, which for many people, will be in short supply.

There are plenty of methods to see each other using technology it may not suit all or be ideal but it's an option.

If the business now don't have the money (as you stated) to re-open I'm afraid it's too late for them if they can't get loans etc...

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

What you have is a cause-and-effect assumption - then you've jumped to a conclusion.

This cause-and-effect assumption has to be tested by an inquiry, i.e. Were other aggravated factors in place in Lombardy which caused it be particularly bad? To what extent were these factors operative compared to other regions? To what extent had Ireland increased its ICU capacity? etc.

Expected outcome: 5x deaths
Action: lockdown
Result: 1x deaths
Cause: definitely not the lockdown, no evidence, sure that’s what would have happened anyway, sure they changed the models, and the country that was 5x was different anyway

GazzaL

thegetawaycar wrote: »

If a business can safely adhere to social distancing, I'd let them open (I'm not the decision maker). If that happens next week or in 3 weeks I'd feel the same.

Who has had their life destroyed by the lockdown?

You might let them open but the Government won't. Most businesses can implement social distancing tomorrow, they were already doing it before the lockdown.

The people who are being affected like I outlined are having their lives destroyed.

thegetawaycar

SusieBlue wrote: »

Maybe for you it isn’t as bad, but you don’t speak for everyone.
It’s all relative to ones personal experience. I am finding current conditions pretty much unbearable and I don’t know how much longer I can take it.
I wake up every day with a weight on my chest at the prospect of trying to fill another day, missing my friends and family, no job to go to, no purpose and very little to distract myself from my anxiety.
I think I have cried at least once a day since the isolation started. I’m finding it hard to cope.
Netflix and chill just isn’t cutting it anymore, I’m not sure it ever was but it was tolerated because we were promised it was only a temporary measure.

One life isn’t more important than the other. We all matter in this and there has to be a balance.

Just to call out, I did ask to explain the part of the lockdown that was causing issue so I could empathise better (which you have), I didn't say it was easy.

That sounds really hard, what part of the restrictions being lifted would help you personally with the anxiety?
Will your job be able to open with social distancing to provide you purpose?

The lockdown IS temporary but I'd expect that some restrictions will remain in place for a long time.

I'm not going to try and tell you what to do as I'm no mental health professional and I'm sorry to hear that it's hitting you hard and that telecommunication with friends and family is not filling the void enough to combat the anxiety.

GazzaL

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Partners that live apart can't see each other - They can
parents can't see their children and vice versa - They can

Again, I'm not saying it's easy or ideal but it's been about 5 weeks not 5 years.
It is difficult if you can't see family members face to face, although if you are going to see them while keeping to social distancing I'd personally consider it essential travel.

Losing businesses is going to happen, that's an unfortunate case here, social distancing is the new norm going forward, if you can't adhere to it, it will be very difficult to re-open or make a living from the business at all.

Not to down play that, new businesses will open that can and more new norms will be created.

They can't if they're more than 2km away from each other. That's what the restrictions say.

Businesses aren't allowed to open even if they can implement social distancing. It takes money to get businesses going, which for many people, will be in short supply.

smelly sock

Amy idea what relaxtions will take place? 2km extended?

Breezin

gozunda wrote: »

I see a lot of posters using the phrase 'people' when the evidently mean themselves on this thread

But yeah not particularly helpful that attitude tbh.

Just because some may have decided to go against the current advise of helping to reduce the rate of infection and oreventing our health services from being overrun - doesn't mean we are all eejits and going to do the same.

This is the sort of sly, insinuating tone of accusation that the lockdown has produced. No one opposing the lockdown or commenting on restrictions can possibly be without guilt. Sinister, and reminiscent of authoritarian regimes throughout history.

Why can't you just debate the pros and cons on their merit?

growleaves

Deleted User wrote: »

At least 13,000 deaths in Lombardy who were slow to lockdown in a population of 10 million. Compared to where we will probably top out at 1,500 to 2,000 in this cycle, if we were like Lombardy it would have been 6,000+. And even then we were a bit late. It works.

What you have is a cause-and-effect assumption - then you've jumped to a conclusion.

This cause-and-effect assumption has to be tested by an inquiry, i.e. Were other aggravated factors in place in Lombardy which caused it be particularly bad? To what extent were these factors operative compared to other regions? To what extent had Ireland increased its ICU capacity? etc.

hmmm

Interesting idea being proposed in New York - close off streets, and allow restaurants to serve guests in the open air.

It's ideas like this that we need here too, and businesses should be pushing for.

thegetawaycar

GazzaL wrote: »

Most businesses have plans to implement social distancing, would you let them open?

Why don't you care about the lives being destroyed because of the lockdown?

If a business can safely adhere to social distancing, I'd let them open (I'm not the decision maker). If that happens next week or in 3 weeks I'd feel the same.

Who has had their life destroyed by the lockdown?

is_that_so

Suggestion that the plan may not have dates but will have a map of how each of the phases will work.

thegetawaycar

GazzaL wrote: »

Partners that live apart can't see each other, parents can't see their children and vice versa, people are losing jobs that gave them self esteem, people are losing businesses that they spent their lives building. People are losing the good things in their lives, which in some cases will lead to further destruction of relationships and mental health. We will unfortunately see more suicides as a result of this.

Partners that live apart can't see each other - They can
parents can't see their children and vice versa - They can

Again, I'm not saying it's easy or ideal but it's been about 5 weeks not 5 years.
It is difficult if you can't see family members face to face, although if you are going to see them while keeping to social distancing I'd personally consider it essential travel.

Losing businesses is going to happen, that's an unfortunate case here, social distancing is the new norm going forward, if you can't adhere to it, it will be very difficult to re-open or make a living from the business at all.

Not to down play that, new businesses will open that can and more new norms will be created.

SusieBlue

thegetawaycar wrote: »

So I can empathise better, what parts of the lockdown are causing you severe issues?

"Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended" - While there may be few cases where this is true and I'd agree with removing some restrictions over time, why would those 4 things be suspended?
Families and marriages for the most part live in the same dwelling so shouldn't really be "suspended".

Relationships and friendships where not living in the same house shouldn't be suspended, there are numerous methods of communication that can be used, we live in an age of technology so nearly all obstacles to friendships can be overcome quite easily.

I'm not saying it's not difficult for some but it really isn't as bad as some make it out.

Maybe for you it isn’t as bad, but you don’t speak for everyone.
It’s all relative to ones personal experience. I am finding current conditions pretty much unbearable and I don’t know how much longer I can take it.
I wake up every day with a weight on my chest at the prospect of trying to fill another day, missing my friends and family, no job to go to, no purpose and very little to distract myself from my anxiety.
I think I have cried at least once a day since the isolation started. I’m finding it hard to cope.
Netflix and chill just isn’t cutting it anymore, I’m not sure it ever was but it was tolerated because we were promised it was only a temporary measure.

One life isn’t more important than the other. We all matter in this and there has to be a balance.

tobefrank321

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?

Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

If we lockdown for most of the year the cost will be somewhere between 30-50 billion.

If we could isolate the truly vulnerable and isolate nursing homes and as importantly nursing home staff and their families the cost might be 10 billion.

The government have been useless at isolating nursing homes and shutting down everything is the lazymans approach to protrecting groups like nursing home residents.

appledrop

KrustyUCC wrote: »

These two bonus weeks are a result of the mess in nursing homes etc and HSE not having sufficient testing capacity

Nothing to do with the public at large

The virus is very well suppressed in the community

The vast vast majority have done all that could be asked of them

Be very interesting how the government will try to spin this one

Yep nearly 50% of all deaths from Covid are in Nursing Homes. Its a disgrace. Continuing lockdown for another 2 weeks will do nothing to solve this at all. They need personnel in Nursing home now + move residents to isolation units elsewhere if necessary. What about all the private hospitial beds lying empty? They could be used for over crowded nursing homes.

[Deleted User]

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?

Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

At least 13,000 deaths in Lombardy who were slow to lockdown in a population of 10 million. Compared to where we will probably top out at 1,500 to 2,000 in this cycle, if we were like Lombardy it would have been 6,000+. And even then we were a bit late. It works.

By the way I would advocate loosening

gozunda

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.

Lol. You would argue with a signpost

I suppose anyone can chose to read that and claim whatever they like then add boldy bits for good measure

But yes It says exactly what I referred to that there will be a global downturn/ recession. And btw I did not mention anything about a recovery. But yes that will follow as well.
Do try and keep up.

GazzaL

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Only commenting on the last part, because something is "worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year" does not mean it's not frivolous.
They aren't a necessity and shouldn't be valued over 1 persons life.

If they can't allow for social distancing safely they should remain closed fore the foreseeable.

Most businesses have plans to implement social distancing, would you let them open?

Why don't you care about the lives being destroyed because of the lockdown?

PmMeUrDogs

The flippancy of those advocating for longer amounts of lockdown is annoying me.

I agreed with the lockdown, and I have abided by it 100%, and think it was absolutely necessary.

But the flippancy, Jesus. It is NOT easy on people. I'm lucky in that it hasn't impacted my mental health, but I'm aware I'm lucky. My friends and family aren't so lucky. Every single one of my friends are texting me daily, experiencing massive anxiety, depressive episodes, crying regularly, etc.

We're not used to it. We are sociable by nature, we're used to being around each other constantly. Being sat at home, with far too much time on our hands, is incredibly difficult and gives us way too much time to overthink and become anxious.

I haven't seen my friends for around 7 weeks and was sent home for that long because I'm high risk. I haven't seen my family except for the person I live with in that time. I have zoom calls daily but those zoom calls are currently filled with my friends being upset because they can't cope.

People who I know were sticking to restrictions are starting to become complacent because they are struggling mentally and want some form of release. Some have been prescribed meds over the phone, but that's not much help until they kick in, which can take weeks.

I've stuck to restrictions and will continue to do so. I've already had family die from the virus and I don't want to risk anyone's health around me. But it's not easy, not in the slightest. Anyone who finds it easy, congratulations, I'm happy for you. I'm finding it fairly okay too. But to insist it's easy for everyone is utter bollocks.

growleaves

thegetawaycar wrote: »

So I can empathise better, what parts of the lockdown are causing you severe issues?

"Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended" - While there may be few cases where this is true and I'd agree with removing some restrictions over time, why would those 4 things be suspended?
Families and marriages for the most part live in the same dwelling so shouldn't really be "suspended".

Relationships and friendships where not living in the same house shouldn't be suspended, there are numerous methods of communication that can be used, we live in an age of technology so nearly all obstacles to friendships can be overcome quite easily.

I'm not saying it's not difficult for some but it really isn't as bad as some make it out.

Isolation is a known cause of depression and early onset of dementia.

Virtuality is not comparable to real life.

If we were to entertain 'rolling lockdowns' for 'extended periods' then we will have essentially agreed to give up living. It would be akin to mass suicide.

Even if they lift this thing in early June they'll have turned another generation of Irish into paupers. With no emigration safety valve, expect lots of strange and frightening political changes in the years ahead.

thegetawaycar

Nermal wrote: »

There's evidence they don't work.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911

There's also plenty of evidence that they cost a gargantuan amount of money and are totally unjustifiable on a cost of life years saved basis.

Is that the sort of evidence you want?

Christ. Sectors worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Frivolous, he says.

Only commenting on the last part, because something is "worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year" does not mean it's not frivolous.
They aren't a necessity and shouldn't be valued over 1 persons life.

If they can't allow for social distancing safely they should remain closed fore the foreseeable.

gozunda

Speakerboxx wrote: »

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

I see a lot of posters using the phrase 'people' when the evidently mean themselves on this thread

But yeah not particularly helpful that attitude tbh.

Just because some may have decided to go against the current advise of helping to reduce the rate of infection and preventing our health services from being overrun - doesn't mean we are all eejits and going to do the same.

GazzaL

growleaves wrote: »

Families, marriages, relationships, friendships have also been suspended and those aren't frivolous.

Lockdown is an evil and destructive policy. The best thing you can say about it is that it is a "necessary evil" and even then you should be demanding extraordinary proof. I say this to defenders of the lockdown as much as anyone.

Simply flinging the dichotomy of cancelling ordinary human life vs. sacrificing old peoples lives isn't going to cut it. It isn't clear if this is a true dichotomy, if things are this simple.

Also:

Stop lying about the lockdown being trivial, or trivially easy to endure. It isn't.

Partners that live apart can't see each other, parents can't see their children and vice versa, people are losing jobs that gave them self esteem, people are losing businesses that they spent their lives building. People are losing the good things in their lives, which in some cases will lead to further destruction of relationships and mental health. We will unfortunately see more suicides as a result of this.