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

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

We don't have a number, we never will, but we have to at some point stand back and assess the current risk relative to the measures.

odyssey06 wrote: »

30,000 deaths were what would have happened had we just treated this as a flu for which we had no vaccine and continued on as normal.
And by we, I mean not just government restrictions, but the behaviour of companies, individuals etc.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

First, want to thank you for your reply and the time you put into it. Genuinely appreciated

I would broadly agree with most of the points you make, but to answer your specific question - yes, the initial responses in March were entirely appropriate and correct given the circumstances and what we knew at that point.

We needed to urgently get people's attention as to the seriousness of the situation and the risk (as we understood it at that point), and buy time for the HSE to ramp up to respond.

The problems started when that latter activity took FAR longer than it should have (and as you say, still isn't where it needs to be today) and the relaxation of the measures was dragged out because of that and the serious mistakes made in the nursing homes (I do think there will be a Tribunal into all this when it's finally over).

As a result the response didn't keep pace with the new information that emerged, the observed impact in Ireland, and the consequences to the rest of our social, (other) medical and economic well-being. This was compounded by the previous Government's decision to effectively turn all the key decisions over to NPHET. A body who are looking at solely from one very-conservative medicak perspective (as is their remit).

So yes, the measures did help to save lives - but the question and point of contention remains as to whether they were necessary at the level they were imposed at after those first few weeks, and whether they continue to be appropriate and proportional now.

Given what we know now about the impact of the virus, who is worst affected, and the outcome of cases, I and others here are arguing that NO - they are in fact disproportionate to the level of risk posed to the vast majority of those who are impacted by them and this is borne out by the numbers dead and outcomes of cases (and it's worth highlighting here again that yes, I have the greatest sympathy for those who've died, but deaths were unfortunately inevitable and in the context of a pandemic that suggested tens of thousands dead at the start, we're actually in a relatively good place).

The outcome is that we are not only causing further social division, mental health concerns, and economic damage - we are in fact hampering our ability to target our not-infinite resources towards those who actually need help and support the most.

The division within Government isn't helping this and the latest round of restrictions should in fact be entirely reversed until such time as a consensus and logic is established to them. Again, we're actually doing more harm than good - and it's also eroding the support and buy-in from the general public (something without which we really COULD have a problem).

So, as I've said before... it comes down to perspective, balancing the medical needs of the (thankfully) few vs the needs of the healthy/minimal risk majority, and most importantly remaining calm and consistent in the messaging, approach and adjustments that are necessary.

In my view, we're not getting this right at the moment, and it's not helped by the divisive stances taken on platforms such as this with "sides"/"camps"/"pro vs anti" etc etc. All that does is create a level of noise and frustration that closes minds to the actual message that really DOES need to be heard and reasonably debated.
After all we are ALL on the same "side" here. No-one wants to get sick or die from CV-19, or see friends or loved ones get sick or die. No-one wants to lose their jobs or see others lose theirs etc.
This is (as I referred to in a post earlier) the very real problem with a lot of social media currently and the damaging effect that it's having on our ability to discuss and debate, and society in general.

So, with that last point in mind I do genuinely thank you for the above reply and hope this helps clarify my own stance.

i_surge wrote: »

That is exactly it, we have non infinite resources and we are burning them up and wasting time.

We can't play cat and mouse for very long. Time for the exterminators.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

More than 80 people, including the Agriculture Minister, senators and TDs attended a golf function in a hotel in breach of public health guidelines just a day after the Government announced new lockdown measures to stop the spread of Covid-19.

The Oireachtas Golf Society event to celebrate its 50th anniversary was held at a function room at the Station House Hotel, Clifden, Co Galway last night, even though public health advice clearly states "no formal or informal events or parties should be organised in these premises".

Irish Examiner Reporting Now

PTH2009 wrote: »

Puppets there treating the general public and then blaming us when stuff goes wrong

brooke 2 wrote: »

Had heard about that interview before I saw it. Much worse than I imagined it would be. :eek: You could sense Zara King's shock at what she was hearing from her silent reaction!!

gmisk wrote: »

How long before Dara Calleary releases the standard I apologise unreservedly statement I wonder?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

- Are you personally in that most vulnerable group?
- Are you genuinely fearful of catching the virus?
- Are you happy to let the experts decide what's best for you?
- Is is that you resent others who don't fit one of the above categories?

MickeyLeari wrote: »

What is he apologising for?

This is worse than Soviet Russia.