Relaxation of restrictions Part II

kwestfan08 wrote: »

But if you're under say 40 with no underlying conditions, not obese and not in contact with anyone that is it is relatively harmless no?

If you are under 80 with those stats the survival odd's are greatly stacked in your favour.

Beasty wrote: »

"Coccoon the elderly and let us work" implies to me an acceptance of an increase in that R number. If we go down the route of opening everything up you appreciate that R number will increase? What is an acceptable number to you? What is an acceptable number of deaths to you?

To be fair it doesn’t really matter what’s its acceptable to any individual poster, that’s a matter of opinion for each individual.

But how can people put a number on what they would like when we don’t even know officially what the numbers are needing to be?

I would like the numbers to be whatever the powers that be are comfortable with for example would be a reasonable answer for anyone if they were given any indication what they might actually be.

Anyone have any idea what that might be?

No pointing in asking an average poster to give nunbers they would be happy with when there’s little guidance in regards to numbers or even criteria for measurement.

Maybe I missed it but there’s no reference to numbers being at a certain level in the road map.

Deleted User wrote: »

20% plus of the population would need to cocoon for 12 months plus, not just the old, the you count those who live with them and you are probably closer roll to 30% of the population who cannot engage in economic activity for the long term. Massive impact on the remainder of the workforce from that. Take care in reopening will allow the bulk of those to also start engaging in economic activity, and though we would have a slower return to normality, we would actually ultimately get an embedded and sustained recovery

But the reopening is not happening and currently 100% are isolated indefinitely.

The sum total of the information we can get is the the numbers need to be as low as possible.

On the build up to May 5th, we had been span lies about RO below 1 and ICU not overran and even though those targets were met the restrictions were extended.

I have no doubt the restrictions will continue as is beyond May 18th because the NPHET is unchallenged and the testing numbers won't be high enough. What has happened today is devoid of all signs of any easing of restrictions.

so do people think we could be pushed back another 2 weeks of this on may 18th?

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But the reopening is not happening and currently 100% are isolated indefinitely.

The sum total of the information we can get is the the numbers need to be as low as possible.

On the build up to May 5th, we had been span lies about RO below 1 and ICU not overran and even though those targets were met the restrictions were extended.

I have no doubt the restrictions will continue as is beyond May 18th because the NPHET is unchallenged and the testing numbers won't be high enough. What has happened today is devoid of all signs of any easing of restrictions.

They are doubling down. They over-compensated for early laxity with a hard, dumb sledgehammer.
Now they don't have anything in their toolkit other than punitive restrictions and shifting goalposts. Meanwhile a vaccine is nowhere in sight.

This whole episode is the oddest thing that has ever happened.

There's no indication that covid is significantly more lethal than e.g. the flu of 2017-18.

Yet I don't remember anyone saying 'how many deaths will there be?' In fact I don't remember the flu of 2017-18 at all.

If people are that concerned with death from respiraory viruses then why haven't we already diverted all our tax monies to buy ventilators, given private donations to increase ICU capacity etc. Why wasn't the 'Beijing flu' of 1997 a wake-up call etc.?

This monomania is both very focused and very sudden.