Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part III - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

1…165166168170171…325

Comments

  • #5012
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    growleaves wrote: »
    Surely, also, there is a qualitative moral difference between separating families and eliminating human interactions on a timescale of a few weeks or months, and enforcing it on a timescale of years?

    There is a moral dimension to our actions. Science is neutral, but our deployment of science is not neutral.

    Even the people who believe, without proof (by which I mean certainty), that lockdown worked should be asking themselves about this.

    What do you think would have been better - wait 6 weeks and see the impact of social distancing while cases and deaths were growing at 30% per day? Hindsight is always great, and even so, in Sweden where only social distancing was put in place, the R0 has remained at about 1 following the initial surge. For us this would have resulted in a sustained 40 deaths per day continuing, with no evidence as yet as to when that would taper off.

    I do believe however that we can accelerate the restart, especially in relation to childminding, small businesses etc (probably less risk opening a small shop with social distancing and low footfall than Woodies), however I have not seen any data to suggest we took the wrong step to begin with.


  • #5013
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,712 ✭✭✭storker


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    The blind faith in lockdowns is amusing. They have apparently stopped hundreds of thousands of deaths despite no evidence whatsoever.

    It's not blind if it's supported by mathematical reasoning. If the virus spreads by close contact with someone who's infected, then reducing close contact is going to reduce the number of infections. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't be looking at many more cases currently if everyone had continued as normal?

    One can dispute the exact predictions, sure, but it's a bigger jump to say there was no need to get people to separate. And to say that it didn't need some form of compulsion behind social distancing its to attribute a degree of obedience that the Irish nation has not been in the habit of showing historically. Forty years ago if it had been preached from the pulpit, maybe...


  • #5014
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    What do you think would have been better - wait 6 weeks and see the impact of social distancing while cases and deaths were growing at 30% per day?

    But raind in the post you replied to specifically I'm talking about the future, not hindight - in response to claims that we would need restrictions for years ahead.

    Say (for argument's sake) that we have followed the correct policy up to now. But what I'm saying is that the moral aspect of separating physical contact of families, preventing new family formation etc. begins to change in character the longer it goes on.

    Three years of not allowing people to live their lives is different to three weeks, not just numerically but morally.


  • #5015
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,825 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    RugbyLad11 wrote: »
    He reminds me of the kid in school who thinks.he knows everything and tells everyone what to do

    You've pretty much described every politician.


  • #5016
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,373 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    CruelSummer wrote: »
    What’s your point of view on this instead of attacking mine.

    I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

    Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.


  • Advertisement
  • #5017
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,825 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    storker wrote: »
    It's not blind if it's supported by mathematical reasoning. If the virus spreads by close contact with someone who's infected, then reducing close contact is going to reduce the number of infections. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't be looking at many more cases currently if everyone had continued as normal?

    One can dispute the exact predictions, sure, but it's a bigger jump to say there was no need to get people to separate. And to say that it didn't need some form of compulsion behind social distancing its to attribute a degree of obedience that the Irish nation has not been in the habit of showing historically. Forty years ago if it had been preached from the pulpit, maybe...

    Logic Fail alert.

    These weren't the only two options available.

    We could have implemented reasonable precautions, implemented social distancing where possible, stressed improved hand hygiene, facilitated work from home where possible, identified the vulnerable demographics and protected them, etc, etc.

    Fcuking our economy into the gutter, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs and adding billions to our debt burden shouldn't have been the No. 1 go-to option.


  • #5018
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    That is surprising especially given face masks are compulsory there. Austria where face masks are also compulsory has also now reported the R0 has risen above 1
    Because they're another one of the risk reducers, not a risk removers. Just like hand hygiene and distancing and border controls and quarantine and contact tracing and testing. The more risk reducers you have in place the lower the overall risk. Compare the countries with the most risk reducers in place to those who don't. Austria with nearly double our population has had just over 600 deaths, the Czechs with double our population have had just under 300. What's our ah sure aren't we doin grand "score" now? just over 1500 dead. With half the above populations and lower population densities and far fewer apartment dwellers.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #5019
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,527 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Hurrache wrote: »
    I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

    Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

    I think the majority who are in favour of relaxing restrictions were in favour of the lockdown as a temporary measure, but it cannot be sustained longterm for many reasons. A lockdown is something you go for as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

    The high risk areas appear to be nursing homes, hospitals and factories where people are close together for 8 hours a day. And they will always be the high risk areas lockdown or no lockdown.


  • #5020
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    Hurrache wrote: »
    I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

    Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

    I don’t engage with trolling behaviour who are goading for a reaction. You should be on this thread for a debate and all you’re doing is attacking posts. I asked you very specific questions to understand your point of view.
    What is it besides attacking my posts?


  • #5021
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    growleaves wrote: »
    But raind in the post you replied to specifically I'm talking about the future, not hindight - in response to claims that we would need restrictions for years ahead.

    Say (for argument's sake) that we have followed the correct policy up to now. But what I'm saying is that the moral aspect of separating families, preventing new family formation etc. begins to change in character the longer it goes on.

    Three years of not allowing people to live their lives is different to three weeks, not just numerically but morally.

    I agree, we need to free up peoples lives at a faster pace, and the level of measure we had in place could and should not be maintained, from a health and welfare point of view firstly, but also economically.
    My original post on section of the thread however was trying to address those suggestions that what has been done up to now has achieved nothing when it clearly did reduce transmission, to which the response from you and others was that there was no evidence that the lockdown achieved anything more than social distancing would have, and that is what I was addressing. Well Sweden, Texas and elsewhere is that evidence - R0 has remained at 1 following initial surge with death rates not falling yet, whereas for example Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc also had a similar surge, but now have returned to a lower level of deaths than during surge, with R0 now normalising around 1 and a lower base daily death rate.


  • Advertisement
  • #5022
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,373 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    I think the majority who are in favour of relaxing restrictions were in favour of the lockdown as a temporary measure, but it cannot be sustained longterm for many reasons. A lockdown is something you go for as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

    The high risk areas appear to be nursing homes, hospitals and factories where people are close together for 8 hours a day. And they will always be the high risk areas lockdown or no lockdown.

    I don't disagree with you on this. But there's a cohort who do believe, retrospectively, that because the numbers are lower than predicted then the lock down wasn't needed without understanding the causality.


  • #5023
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,373 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    CruelSummer wrote: »
    I don’t engage with trolling behaviour who are goading for a reaction. You should be on this thread for a debate and all you’re doing is attacking posts. I asked you very specific questions to understand your point of view.
    What is it besides attacking my posts?

    You're the one that ranted about the failure in the numbers reaching their forecasts and then argue against the lock down, an abject failure in understanding things.

    Look, I understand you cannot return with a sensible answer to your claims, because there are none. And that's ok, but don't get offended by my quizzing you on them, telling me I'm attacking your posts when all I'm doing is pulling them apart, and resort to insinuating I'm trolling as an easy way out for yourself.


  • #5024
    RugbyLad11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 547 ✭✭✭RugbyLad11


    Since yesterday we've been allowed to meet friends from different households.

    But very few people live less than 5km from their friends, so is everyone breaking the 5km limit?


  • #5025
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    To be honest, I think we could open up the whole country tomorrow and we would be grand. Obviously we'd keep in place social distancing and hand washing etc. There might be a rise in cases and even deaths but it would be an acceptable level and we'd have to balance things.

    The big challenge is air travel and sports/events etc. Stopping air travel and big events likely had a much bigger impact in reducing cases than locking down.

    Thats what we'll need to be most cautious about reopening. Ironically, Leo has already mentioned air travel. We can keep Ikea closed for months but I guarantee we won't want to upset the EU when they want free movement back.

    I'd be in favour of us getting our own country going again as soon as possible. I personally don't care if we wait a few months to see how air travel goes between other countries first.


  • #5026
    RugbyLad11
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 547 ✭✭✭RugbyLad11


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    You've pretty much described every politician.

    Most other politicians have more charisma so it's not as noticeable


  • #5027
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    Hurrache wrote: »
    You're the one that ranted about the failure in the numbers reaching their forecasts and then argue against the lock down, an abject failure in understanding things.

    Look, I understand you cannot return with a sensible answer to your claims, because there are none. And that's ok, but don't get offended by my quizzing you on them, telling me I'm attacking your posts when all I'm doing is pulling them apart, and resort to insinuating I'm trolling as an easy way out for yourself.

    You’ve answered no question re where you stand, tried to throw in an anti vaccine argument into it from nowhere, given no point of view and contributed nothing to the debate for either side.
    I respect all opinions and points of view. Good day.


  • #5028
    Stormyteacup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 999 ✭✭✭Stormyteacup


    Hurrache wrote: »
    I have made it clear from the outset, over and over, that the problem I have is the dumb argument people are using that because our numbers are so low, we basically didn't need to have bothered with a lock down.

    Nobody who has put that argument forward has been able to deal with or understand it, including you. Your tactic, obvious with your most recent post, and the one previous, is to ignore it and retort with a wall of irrelevant questions and points.

    There really aren’t many saying a lockdown was unnecessary. I believe it was, mainly because it would have been impossible to social distance in pre-lockdown Ireland enough to suppress the virus.

    But that doesn’t negate evidence that in theory social distancing alone could be sufficient to keep virus suppressed, if done properly. There are difficulties in certain industries to social distance enough here that’s understood.

    But I’m definitely arguing that the numbers have been so low for enough weeks that the level of lockdown in our roadmap is not justified.

    And that we are not being properly informed of relevant trend numbers, that we are being treated with disdain (again) by the government, and that we are being subjected to a biased (or lazy) reporting by the media.


  • #5029
    Irish Aris
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 6,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Aris


    RugbyLad11 wrote: »
    Since yesterday we've been allowed to meet friends from different households.

    But very few people live less than 5km from their friends, so is everyone breaking the 5km limit?

    No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

    My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
    I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

    If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .

    2025 gigs: Selofan, Alison Moyet, Wardruna, Gavin Friday, Orla Gartland, The Courettes, Nine Inch Nails, Rhiannon Giddens, New Purple Celebration, Nova Twins



  • #5030
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    Hurrache wrote: »
    I don't disagree with you on this. But there's a cohort who do believe, retrospectively, that because the numbers are lower than predicted then the lock down wasn't needed without understanding the causality.

    There are those of us who believed, at the time, that the full lockdown was not required and that a partial lockdown of the vulnerable allied to social distancing, good hygiene, etc would have been enough. You believe that the lockdown was required, but you can no more prove it than I can prove my position.


  • #5031
    Breezin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 698 ✭✭✭Breezin


    Irish Aris wrote: »
    No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

    My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
    I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

    If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .


    Fully justified and reasonable. But it's a pity that officialdom is encouraging this sort of pragmatic individual response so that they can save face and hold on desperately to their strong leadership role.


  • Advertisement
  • #5032
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,248 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Of all restrictions right now the 5kms is daft


  • #5033
    MrDavid1976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭MrDavid1976


    Irish Aris wrote: »
    No, not yet. I live outside of Drogheda and my 3-4 closest friends are all in Dublin and they will be able to meet outdoors and they will all be within 5km of where they live.

    My plan is that if the numbers of new cases continues to fall and stay low, I will start travelling to Dublin when phase 2 kicks in, on June 8th. By then the restriction will be 20 km. I am double that distance but I will chance it once a week, taking all the necessary precautions. There is a medical reason that I could use if stopped by the police (my best friend is also a personal trainer and a coach and helps me with my back pains and other muscle injuries) but in reality it isn't essential - I only had mild back pains the last few weeks.
    I know people say that technology is there and you can connect with people but for me it doesn't work the same as meeting with my friends in person, even when we have to stay 2 meters apart. For me it is still better than a video call. I haven't met with anyone I know since the 24th of March (I live on my own) and it starts taking its toll on me.

    If numbers of cases go up, I guess I might have to readjust my above plan. I reckon we will only know on week 3 of the current phase. . .

    If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?


  • #5034
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    South Africa:
    "With increasing knowledge of the virus, we now know that those most vulnerable are the elderly and those with comorbidities. However, people under 30, and school-going children are not," Gray added.

    "So, then you deal with those people. You don't put the whole country into lockdown because you don't know how to deal with [the] elderly and the people who have vulnerabilities.

    "South Africans bought in, and everyone tightened their belts and took the lockdown with grace. During that period, we failed to deliver water, we failed to deliver food parcels and we failed to make households on the brink of devastation safe.
    Sanne said the extended lockdown was having a negative impact on the healthcare system.

    He added that normal, non-Covid-related diseases were not receiving attention.

    Sanne told News24 there had been an increase in missed appointments by HIV patients of between 40% and 60% since the lockdown, and a similar issue was expected for diabetes and other illnesses needing chronic medication.

    There had been a substantive decline in childhood vaccination programmes, he said, which scientists believed would lead to a substantial outbreak of childhood diseases in the future.

    Another example was semi-urgent surgeries, like spinal surgeries or early onset cancer treatments.

    Maternity screenings are also being affected, possibly leading to an increase in maternal and early childhood-related illnesses.

    Hospital admissions had declined by 75% in the private sector, although the same data was not available for public sector hospitals.

    "It may be because of the fear of Covid-19, we don't know, but elective procedures are not happening. While we don't have that many Covid-19 patients admitted, we should be using the opportunity to catch up on elective surgery," Sanne said.
    "Infections are inevitable. Sixty percent or so of our country will become infected over the next two years, but limiting the rate of infection is not going to come through lockdown," Mendelson said.

    He suggested a "rapid de-escalation" of the lockdown to Level 1.

    While the central questions the government is asking are about balancing the impact of the lockdown with the rate of infections, Mendelson said he believed "that the evidence they are basing their assumptions on is wrong".

    "Lockdown in its current form is doing more harm than good and, given the resource constraints of the country, we need to re-focus the central tenet of prevention on the non-therapeutic interventions already described, while opening up the economy quicker."


  • #5035
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    MrDavid1976 wrote: »
    If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?

    Its all incredibly scientific from what I can see.

    If one travels 6km from their homes on the 7th of June the grim reaper will be notified using google maps.

    Likewise for the health risk of barbers which will immediately dissipate at midnight July 19th.


  • #5036
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    polesheep wrote: »
    There are those of us who believed, at the time, that the full lockdown was not required and that a partial lockdown of the vulnerable allied to social distancing, good hygiene, etc would have been enough. You believe that the lockdown was required, but you can no more prove it than I can prove my position.

    There is evidence that countries that acted in time, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark for example and Ireland to a lesser extent, did not avoid the same surge that countries such as Sweden which had social distancing only had, but in contrast to Sweden these countries have now fallen to a very low level relative to peak, while Sweden has remained at or close to peak levels. Looking at the data, Austria, Germany, Denmark and Sweden all now probably have an R0 close to 1, however the daily death rate in the first 3 is a fraction of that in Sweden as the lockdown cut transmission to the minimum before the start of easing restrictions


  • #5037
    Irish Aris
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 6,966 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Aris


    MrDavid1976 wrote: »
    If there is a medical reason and indeed an important element of medicine is preventative and that goes for mental health also, is there a reason to wait until 8 June?

    You're probably right.
    At the moment I'm still coping fairly OK. The good thing is that I have a couple of colleagues that live close by, so that could be a temporary alternative - meet them for a takeaway coffee. That could take care the mental health aspect.

    The good thing is that I will be very busy with work for the next 2 weeks, and I always find it a good distraction.

    I just try to take it one day at a time :)

    2025 gigs: Selofan, Alison Moyet, Wardruna, Gavin Friday, Orla Gartland, The Courettes, Nine Inch Nails, Rhiannon Giddens, New Purple Celebration, Nova Twins



  • #5038
    polesheep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is evidence that countries that acted in time, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark for example and Ireland to a lesser extent, did not avoid the same surge that countries such as Sweden which had social distancing only had, but in contrast to Sweden these countries have now fallen to a very low level relative to peak, while Sweden has remained at or close to peak levels. Looking at the data, Austria, Germany, Denmark and Sweden all now probably have an R0 close to 1, however the daily death rate in the first 3 is a fraction of that in Sweden as the lockdown cut transmission to the minimum before the start of easing restrictions

    But Sweden failed to protect the vulnerable with a partial lockdown, which I stated should have been part of every government's response. Plus, we will have to wait and see, if we ever can, what the overall death toll will be, both from Covid-19 and from other causes that could have been avoided had there been no lockdown in place.


  • #5039
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭growleaves


    But Sweden failed to protect the vulnerable with a partial lockdown, which I stated should have been part of every government's response.

    I would like to see which countries did protect nursing homes effectively, and see that comparison.

    Ireland, Sweden, UK, Spain, NYC (yeah I know its not a country) and others failed.


  • #5040
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Stormyteacup wrote: »
    The fact that there's a vacuum in hearing from experts with differing opinions to NPHET is telling in itself.

    I don't necessarily agree with Marcus de Brun's theories but he is an expert in the medical field. He resigned from NPHET in April over their decision on care homes. It was poorly thought out when he asked RTE to make a donation of €10,000 to ALONE in exchange for an interview.

    He apologised, since then RTE has written or reported nothing about him, or his opinons. If you're main source of news is RTE, you won't have heard much detail about his resignation.

    He was effectively a 'whistle-blower' over the decisions made by NPHET over care homes, yet doesn't warrant even one article in RTE (with or without comment by him).
    There are a whole lot of "Listen to me I'm a doctor" voices out there, regardless of their specialty. He resigned from the Irish Medical Council BTW not NPHET. What exactly are they going to ask him as he's a care home GP and that has now been addressed?


  • Advertisement
  • #5041
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    growleaves wrote: »
    I would like to see which countries did protect nursing homes effectively, and see that comparison.

    Ireland, Sweden, UK, Spain, NYC (yeah I know its not a country) and others failed.
    That will be a very short list, maybe Germany, NZ and Australia? The vast majority of countries with large nursing homes sectors ran into the issue.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement