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

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ireland-idUSKBN2350YS

As others have mentioned, Leo on the 2m and the speeding up of reopening

JRant wrote: »

I agree, the press have been woeful from the very beginning of this. That doesn't take away from the fact that NPHET stopped publishing their meeting minutes. That's an absolute scandal IMO.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

It's guidance from Tony, he advises. the rules come from Leo

Benimar wrote: »

It's actually shocking the amount of people who don't (or won't?) understand this.

Harpon wrote:

Are you saying eu countries are lying about the number of infections? If so where is your evidence of that?

Harpon wrote:

Are you saying Lidl and Aldi are lying about the number of staff infected? If so where is your evidence of that?

fleet_admiral wrote: »

Anybody else's children starting to really act up? My son has been handling this madness fine up to this week. He's sick of doing homework and it's a job to get him out of the house. He was fine up to the last few days.

the kelt wrote: »

Well not really,

Sure you get the odd nut but the majority is based on alternative opinions from experts in the field and the longer and longer it goes on the more and more expert opinion comes out that counteracts much of the main opinion our own experts are working off. Most people are quoting other medical opinions, not their own.

We are learning more and more as we go along, a case in point being the children being super spreaders of the virus for example which seems now isn’t the case, the fact that a loss of taste and smell is now a symptom but was t recognised as one up until this week.

But mostly people are looking at the rest of Europe, all with their own experts in the field and medical people inputting into their decisions and deciding they can open up far far quicker than ourselves for some unknown reason I’ve yet to hear a reason for other than “let’s wait and see how everyone else gets on” which isn’t actually a reason, it’s a pathetic excuse to not make a decision.

Maybe the HSE have better experts than it seems the entire medical experts made up of the rest of Europe?

The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology.

That explains why Dr. D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme.

Says the NYT:

Dr. Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.

The measures embraced by Drs. Mecher and Hatchett would “result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems,” Dr. Henderson wrote in his own academic paper responding to their ideas.

The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out: Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back.

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. … It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration…

Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of 3 feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened….

suicide_circus wrote: »

how many people under 65 with no co morbidities have died in ireland?