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

When did "save lives" become prevent all cases of Covid at all costs.

The vulnerable have died early on with covid, what left is stronger people who are not ill enough to miss work while having Covid.

To justify the hysteria, surely Covid should have health effects that prevent citizen's attending work?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What's your advice to people who are either single or in non-cohabiting relationships? Should people literally remain celibate indefinitely? That's the real crux of why social distancing seems insurmountable for another protracted period for so many young people and it's the one issue that isn't being talked about. It might sound ridiculous to people who are either asexual or in a live-in relationship, but for the vast majority of people the long term lack of physical contact from the opposite sex, especially people who are used to having it in their lives, truly is going to cause a mental health crisis. It's utterly ridiculous for anyone to claim otherwise.

Without clubs, social occasions, college life, etc - and with a 2m social distance requirement for strangers interacting with eachother, sexual relationships between people who won't live together are essentially banned. That's why so many people are desperate for social outlets to reopen. Not drink. For single people it's about the opportunity to meet someone, for people in non live-in relationships they're scratching their heads and wondering how long it'll be before they can hang out with their partners and share a hug or a kiss, let alone anything more.

The current paradigm of "social distancing is here until there's a vaccine, even if that's months or years away" is devastatingly depressing to anyone fitting in to the category of people who (a) have a normal sex drive, and (b) aren't living with a partner.

I guarantee you this is the main driving force behind people like the poster you quoted who are so eager for ordinary social life to resume. Dressing it up as an obsession with alcohol is in my view a total red herring considering alcohol is widely available in shops and can be consumed at home. What people are missing are the settings where it's socially acceptable to chat up a stranger with the door open to forming any kind of physical relationship. What people are missing is being able to meet their partner who lives in a different household and stand closer than 2m away to touch eachother.

All of these are basic, ordinary, everyday human interactions for many people and it's entirely unnatural for people to live without those things long term. It is widely known as a genuine cause of mental health issues and it's utterly ridiculous that people are overlooking this fundamental aspect of social distancing when attacking those who don't find a potential waiting period of six months or more acceptable - those people are looking at a genuine prospect of being single and sexually lonely for that entire period, or - arguably even worse - having a partner but not being able to kiss, hug or anything else because that partner lives in a different household, potentially even an unavoidable public transport trip away.

Are those people supposed to accept the possibility that they could miss out on physical interaction with another human for years?

There has to be a contingency plan which negates this, because regardless of whether you want to accuse people of being selfish or anything else, the bottom line is that this cannot be maintained. People are going to ignore it. People are going to break the rules, Romeo and Juliet style, to sneak away with someone else and get the shift or the ride without caring about the rules they're breaking. The sexual instinct in humans is not something one can simple override for months or years regardless of the circumstances, eventually people will[/b] break the rules because they're horny.

That's why people will throw illegal house parties in the absence of pubs reopening. That's why people will meet people they're not supposed to meet at anything closer than a 2m distance. That's why people will exchange bodily fluids without wearing a mask. And this is something which must be addressed, because expecting the entire single or non co-habiting population of this country to forgo sexual interaction for much longer is simply not going to be possible. Regardless of what you think of people who do so, it won't change the fact that people will begin to take the risk if there isn't a realistic light at the end of the tunnel. That cannot be "wait until there's a vaccine even if that means spending half a decade without a sexual encounter". Whatever you think of the morality thereof is irrelevant - it's not going to happen. People will break, and when they do, they'll break the rules. That's a basic law of human nature - the vast majority of people are not wired to go without physical contact, simple as that.

As always hatrickpatrick, I tip my cap to you for a well written and thoughtful post. And there are certainly elements of it I agree with, such as:

i) I have enormous sympathy for younger people (and 'young' here is a general term that comes with plenty of caveats) who are being denied the ability to engage very natural social and sexual appetites

ii) This isn't being addressed directly in the media at all in the way that is should be, and that can only add to the frustration being experienced. RTE should have features (written, radio and tv) on the subject and NPHET should have been asked to address the matters of shifting and having sex directly, being perfectly blunt about it

But I strongly disagree with some aspects of the above:

a) You try to widen the red herring created and perpetuated on this thread of talking about the impossibility of restrictions lasting "years" while we wait on a vaccine that 'may not even come'. In reality we have numerous vaccines that are into phase III trialling and a huge amount of resource and effort is being expended into the development of these vaccines. We should expect results from phase III trials to become available within the next 12 - 16 weeks; and approval / sign off / manufacturing processes are all being expedited in parallel. Ideally, at least one of the vaccines will be successful and approved and governments can start developing concrete public health roadmaps built around distribution plans. Or they fail and THEN the governments need to reassess strategy and start thinking about what a longer term approach sans vaccine looks like. Either way, the point remains that we are talking about months to a year more of restrictions based on vaccine progress to date. The concept of years or a half decade doesn't come into it and shouldn't be used as a justification for what people would like to do now

b) Related to me agreeing with you that NPHET and the media haven't addressed the realities involved here, I think it should be incumbent on people to make their own decisions here and act responsibly within the spirit of the rules. There is no reason why 'young' single people or those in non cohabiting relationships take extra precautions for a 14 day period and ask a current or prospective partner to do the same before meeting up in a reasonably safe context. It is certainly what I would do, and I say that as an advocate of the current measures. The cheeky shift and the one night stand is out until a vaccine has been widely distributed and the public health crisis is over, but there's no reason why consenting responsible adults can't take steps to meet up in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of restrictions. We already imply some limits on our interactions in these respects due to concerns over STDs and safety, so we should be able to navigate something here. Again, I agree that it is disgraceful that there hasn't been widely disseminated public health guidance on exactly these topics, but here we are.


There is no doubt that Covid has accentuated the things that divide us. The professional couple able to continue working from home without children face many less burdens than single people in their 20's working lower paid service jobs that depend on facing the public. Or the couples with young kids suddenly worried about how they meet their mortgage or rent obligations. And - like with everything else in society - the wealthy and privileged with more space and more money and more mobility and more reach pull away from the rest.

But ideally we would remember why we engaged in restrictions in the first place. The virus doesn't allow us to make personal choices, we may feel young and strong and we may not be susceptible but if we catch it and spread it we risk those who are vulnerable.

Finally, mental health is a serious issue and should not be treated lightly. It is again the very reason why NPHET and the national media should address these issues directly and offer concrete guidance. However, the loss of physical health long term or death must trump that concern in the short term. Just as the protection of physical health and life trumps economic concerns in the short term too. There will be untold damage created by this crisis that isn't clear yet. It will be a mixture of financial damage; long term physical health effects on survivors; mental health impacts; other physical health impacts from certain medical services being paused or made more difficult to access; and finally yes - there is the loss of life and grief created by same. This thread constantly seeks to highlight some of these aspects at the expense of other aspects. All aspects are regrettable and will cause enormous pain and suffering in their own specific way. But it is a mistake to think that any single one can be completely avoided. Our response can only seek to balance multiple concerns and risks. Ideally we would find ways to respect everyone's specific experiences and not label people negatively where possible.

Lockdowns don’t work long term and I suspect Varadkar is coming around to the realisation from yesterday’s interview.
They may suppress the virus briefly but cases pop back up again as human contact increases

road_high wrote: »

Harris can’t help but stick his two cents in...
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/simon-harris-calls-for-more-targeted-lockdowns-and-says-covid-19-testing-should-be-ramped-up-39444087.html

Empty ICU beds, deaths flatlining, small business decimated = More lockdowns.

The mind boggles.

road_high wrote: »

Harris can’t help but stick his two cents in...
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/simon-harris-calls-for-more-targeted-lockdowns-and-says-covid-19-testing-should-be-ramped-up-39444087.html

Minister for Education and member of the cabinet comments on the most critical event to affect our country in centuries?

Why wouldn't he comment?

Others have been whinging that Paschal O'Donohoe hasn't been seen.

Whingers will whinge either way.

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

If cases don't produce accompanying ICU/death numbers then all they tell you is the virus is far less threatening than it was in March.

Gotcha, wait for people to start dying again before reacting.

Sconsey wrote: »

Gotcha, wait for people to start dying again before reacting.

Well at least wait for some bit of a rise anyway, this may come as a shock to you but people die in this country everyday and life goes on.

niallo27 wrote: »

Well at least wait for some bit of a rise anyway, this may come as a shock to you but people die in this country everyday and life goes on.

Well exactly, and for contrast, most people didn't even bat an eyelid at stories like this 2.5 years ago. 50,000 excess deaths that winter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5440785/Killer-flu-outbreak-blame-42-spike-deaths.html

Sconsey wrote: »

So how many preventable deaths are OK before we react? 10? 50? 200? 1,000?

Second part of your comment is moronic.

What non direct covid deaths carnage is acceptable ? How many suicides, spin off covid deaths, mental health issues, businesses and jobs gone etc....

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Cases on top. Deaths on the bottom. Say what you see folks.

Doesn't suit the narrative to report on deaths.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Of course it doesnt.

Vulnerable people died rather swiftly as it spread in nursing homes.

Whats left is people catching a cold

That kind of rational, common sense will get you into a lot of trouble.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Of course it doesnt.

Vulnerable people died rather swiftly as it spread in nursing homes.

Whats left is people catching a cold

I guess I better check on my parents so because according to you they are dead.

I’ve read a lot of stupid things posted on boards but this one is probably the stupidest.

Article on long term effects from contracting Covid for survivors from an authoritative source:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/12/after-covid19-mental-neurological-effects-smolder/

A lot of the regulars in this thread would do well to read it.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Doesn't suit the narrative to report on deaths.

Indeed. The “death tally” must be disappointing for the ghowls in RTE etc
Practically no deaths (and dates and underlying illnesses never mentioned of course) and only a handful in hospital.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Article on long term effects from contracting Covid for survivors from an authoritative source:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/12/after-covid19-mental-neurological-effects-smolder/

A lot of the regulars in this thread would do well to read it.

Yes we need a new angle dont we. Seen as it’s killing nobody