nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

So the end result is a country that might have fewer cases, but that's going to be totally broke.

The more lockdowns we go through, the more people are going to end up with no home and no job, in a country that doesn't have the money to support them properly.

What do you mean it’s going to be totally broke?

There’s no actual reason for this to be true. If the government decides not to offset the economic hit with fiscal measures then they’re utterly incompetent. And the same goes for monetary policy across the whole of Europe.

There’ll be a massive short term impact across Europe and it will take time for the economy to reset, but we’re not going to be broke and any industry which has sound fundamentals should be saved. Not doing so when there’s no reason it can’t be afforded would be absolute idiocy.

The economy shouldn’t come into it. Our bond rate is -0.16%. The economy can be turned around in 2021. Deaths and permanent health issues can not.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

The mask thing wasn't helped by the government initially telling people there was no benefit to masks.

Is that strictly true? My understanding is masks were not recommend to the public because they were needed in hospitals first and foremost until production could be ramped up.

sydthebeat

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is also the inescapable fact that you have to work in a system where people can easily make comparisons across the rest of Europe. Its all well and good to say "listen to the experts" etc etc, but other countries with worse cases than Ireland are taking a fundamentally different approach. It's worth asking why, and people will inevitably ask why

Our low level of ICU beds probably plays into it for one, but this needs to be explained.

we currently have 23 covid related cases in ICU out of a total of approx 300.

thats 8% of capacity currently

we had 354 ICU beds available back in april, ready for the surge that never happened.

awec

The mask thing wasn't helped by the government initially telling people there was no benefit to masks.

sydthebeat

Podge_irl wrote: »

Do you think they'll obey any increased ones?

not a hope... and their numbers will increase substantially.

heres a response i got from an idiot yesterday on the whole issue of mask wearing :

this though process is widespread among idiots, and people i would not consider to be idiots, and is gaining traction due to the vacuum from government.

Gov communication is abysmal on this. Their communication lanes are prehistoric. the only people who watch the six one news or the late late show are the people who already are restricting movements and wear masks everywhere.

[Deleted User]

Podge_irl wrote: »

Do you think they'll obey any increased ones?

No which is kinda the point, the rest of us will have to observe greater intrusion to accommodate their ignorance and stupidity.

aloooof

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is also the inescapable fact that you have to work in a system where people can easily make comparisons across the rest of Europe. Its all well and good to say "listen to the experts" etc etc, but other countries with worse cases than Ireland are taking a fundamentally different approach. It's worth asking why, and people will inevitably ask why

Our low level of ICU beds probably plays into it for one, but this needs to be explained.

This thread is pretty good on that exact point:

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1312868362611982336

awec

NPHET on the 1st October:

"On balance, the NPHET agreed that while the current
trajectory of the disease is very concerning, the current epidemiological data does not strongly
support a move to Level 3 nationally at this time."

3 days later... LEVEL 5 EVERYWHERE.

This is a ****show. The whole point of the levels system is to allow us to adjust gradually and react to living with the virus. To go from localized level 2/3, to 5 nationally, means either:

1. NPHET have grossly under-represented the current danger out there and we should have been in a level 3/4 nationwide lockdown already
2. They are over-representing the current danger in calling for the most extreme option possible.
3. Things have changed utterly drastically in 2 days to the point where we've gone from relatively minor risk to major risk and it's caught them all by surprise.

None of it inspires much confidence in the people making these calls.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest - do you think any of these people are following the guidelines:

Do you think they'll obey any increased ones?

Podge_irl

There is also the inescapable fact that you have to work in a system where people can easily make comparisons across the rest of Europe. Its all well and good to say "listen to the experts" etc etc, but other countries with worse cases than Ireland are taking a fundamentally different approach. It's worth asking why, and people will inevitably ask why

Our low level of ICU beds probably plays into it for one, but this needs to be explained.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

The goal coming out of lockdown was to avoid another one by using policies like mask wearing, social distancing, social gathering limitations and keeping certain types of premises closed.
.

apart from what some, in the main, dublin based posters here are saying about large scale non wearing of masks and large social gatherings... i can say that in my experience the mask wearing where im from is in the high ninety percent range generally. You simply dont go int a shop here without your face covering on. You dont get into a taxi, you dont walk into a pub or restaurant without one on.

family gatherings are very small. Communions and confirmations have been staggered and in the vast main, there are no large get togethers after.

there was one case near me, where a 21st birthday party happened and a marquee was set up.. then ended up having about 200 people at it... the guards came out, closed it down and fined the homeowner €2500

is it any wonder however.. that NPHET are looking at a high spike in cases 3 weeks after the schools started back????

we have countie slike longford, leitrim, kilkenny, louth, cavan, clare, mayo, galway etc where the numbers over the last 2 weeks have been either stready or dropping. That they should be limited to a nationwide course of action because of certain other areas inability to self control is simply nonsensical, and against the whole idea of the level system.

kuang1

All GAA club games cancelled.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well I definitely there is no widespread public appetite for that all at.

The goal coming out of lockdown was to avoid another one by using policies like mask wearing, social distancing, social gathering limitations and keeping certain types of premises closed.

The point of a lockdown is to prevent the health service being overwhelmed. NPHET clearly feel that this risk is now in play again. Covid can get out of control in a very short period of time which is how Italy was devastated at the outset of this. The UK waited until the last minute to hit the panic button and paid a huge price.

awec wrote: »

So the end result is a country that might have fewer cases, but that's going to be totally broke.

The more lockdowns we go through, the more people are going to end up with no home and no job, in a country that doesn't have the money to support them properly.

Its not. The Government is telling us to lockdown, because if the hospitals are over run then public confidence will collapse and people will lockdown regardless but it won't be coordinated nationally and we won't get the virus under control.

The countries finances are ****ed regardless, but I'd rather an organised national lockdown than a disorganised national meltdown with hospitals overrun.

awec wrote: »

But we can cope with this increase? We haven't been told otherwise.

Up to a point, but the numbers are increasing dramatically over just a seven day period. If we do nothing then by the time we are out of ICU bed availability, we are 1 - 2 weeks away from that need doubling again. I suspect the modelling is showing hospitals at capacity by the end of October.

Zzippy

I think a lot of people have observed all the restrictions asked of them. But a lot have not, and care less, because they know there is no penalty. This "policing by consent" policy has no place in a pandemic. There will always be people who think rules don't apply to them, and put everyone else at risk. What use is a guard "advising" them what they should do? Look at the checkpoints last week on the Dublin-Wicklow border.

"Where are you coming from? Ballsbridge. And you're going to Wexford? Are you aware you have been asked not to leave Dublin? Well, all I can do is advise you of that, carry on..."

There need to be mandatory rules and much harsher penalties for breaking them. If people see that there will be far greater compliance, and maybe level 5 is not required. Parties, public gatherings, protests have all been allowed to happen and need to stop.

mfceiling

I wouldn't believe a single word I read on a social media platform.
Anyway the army will explain everything in better detail next week when we're dragged from our homes and forced into disinfection camps.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

But we can cope with this increase? We haven't been told otherwise. As already said, the number of hospitalisations is a fraction of what it was in March.

If the current trend of hospitalisations is enough to warrant a level 5 lockdown nationally then any increase is going to lead to the same lockdown in future.

It is just as likely that we open up again, people adhere to the guidance again, and we see another spike again.

An increase in cases like we are seeing will inevitably lead to an increase in hospitalisations. This surely cant be disputed? So do we wait for the hospitalisations and whatever resulting deaths that brings or get out in front of it before it gets that far?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

So the end result is a country that might have fewer cases, but that's going to be totally broke.

The more lockdowns we go through, the more people are going to end up with no home and no job, in a country that doesn't have the money to support them properly.

But what's the alternative? Sweden didn't lock down and, despite a better healthcare system, had more than 60% more dead per 1,000. In Ireland that would equate to around another 1,200 dead. So where & how do we find the right balance?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the plan was that we re-open, people adhere to the guidance well enough, we see an increase in cases but because people are doing enough its an increase we can cope with.

What we got was a re-open, too many people not adhering to the guidelines well enough and so an increase in cases that we soon realised we weren't going to be able to cope with.

Nobody anywhere knew for certain how people were going to react. The only way to find out was to try it & hope people did enough. We were warned what would happen if people didn't do enough. So we can't in anyway be surprised that we are going backwards as a result.

I know the gut reaction is to blame those in charge, but for this it all comes down to how the population behave. That steers everything. Thats the critical factor.

But we can cope with this increase? We haven't been told otherwise. As already said, the number of hospitalisations is a fraction of what it was in March.

If the current trend of hospitalisations is enough to warrant a level 5 lockdown nationally then any increase is going to lead to the same lockdown in future.

It is just as likely that we open up again, people adhere to the guidance again, and we see another spike again.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, hence the traffic light system.

So the end result is a country that might have fewer cases, but that's going to be totally broke.

The more lockdowns we go through, the more people are going to end up with no home and no job, in a country that doesn't have the money to support them properly.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Yep, exactly.

We can lock down now, then gradually reopen, and guess what'll happen then.

Is the plan to just keep locking down until there's a vaccine?

I think the plan was that we re-open, people adhere to the guidance well enough, we see an increase in cases but because people are doing enough its an increase we can cope with.

What we got was a re-open, too many people not adhering to the guidelines well enough and so an increase in cases that we soon realised we weren't going to be able to cope with.

Nobody anywhere knew for certain how people were going to react. The only way to find out was to try it & hope people did enough. We were warned what would happen if people didn't do enough. So we can't in anyway be surprised that we are going backwards as a result.

I know the gut reaction is to blame those in charge, but for this it all comes down to how the population behave. That steers everything. Thats the critical factor.

molloyjh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not doubting that it's tough. I've been babysitting for my sister more than usual as I have the time. The first time was a few months back and she was so happy, telling me they haven't had a moment to themselves since February.

What I am suggesting is that it is easier if you have a young family to adhere to the guidelines. That's all. It already suits parents' lifestyle to a degree. Getting into a groove and staying in an insular bubble is what parents seem to do anyway. They're never too far away from their children. The stereotype of not seeing your friends once they have kids isn't without merit. Priorities shift once children enter the equation. Parents are happy to stay home more than single people.

That is true to a point. But then the opportunities to get out are disproportionately more important to us too. Parents need a break, need their own lives and their own outlets.

Having young kids in this thing automatically means less of that. With schools open our circle is automatically larger because our daughters is. She can't reduce her circle, so we have to reduce ours even further to account for that.

Our neighbours are younger & don't have kids. They are able to socialise with a few friends & still keep their circle small. Sure it isnt as much as it was before, but its still something. Like I said, other than neighbours I haven't seen any friends at all since this started.

They are different challenges, and the day to day for us probably isn't miles off what it was before. But that lack of the monthly or bi-weekly outlet takes its toll. Possibly somewhat amusingly, a bunch of us on the road were talking recently about it. We all agreed that the thing we miss most about pre-C19 was actually lunch break. A time everyday when we could take a breath and just stop. Because with young kids & a full time job its full on all the time.

sydthebeat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, hence the traffic light system.

Well I definitely see that there is no widespread public appetite for that all at.

Business spend big money making their premises covid ready, buy perishable products, create scheduling etc and NPHET think its fine to close them down at a drop of a hat without any warning??

Nope, that's not at all acceptable or good enough.

What's an acceptable case level?
Are people testing positive after having the virus weeks ago and are no longer contagious?
What level of false positives are we getting?

The hospitalisations and ICU admittance aren't showing currently that we need to jump to level five.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

Is the plan to just keep locking down until there's a vaccine?

Yes, hence the traffic light system.

awec

sydthebeat wrote: »

I don't at all agree with this.

What on earth did they expect when things gradually reopened?
There was no way on hell the case rate was doing to stay in the low double figures.
We had a concrete reason for the first lockdown. Protect the vulnerable by flattening the curve and protect the health service from being overrun. Essentially buying more time. Well that was 7 months ago, the curve was flattened. The HSE were disgraceful in their attempt to protect the vulnerable by actively allowing covid into nursing homes, which, when the dust settles will be down to be the biggest scandal of this whole thing.

As I said already this is a management issue within the HSE that they are trying to solve by recommending severe actions to the whole country. There's no way the whole country should be going from level to 2 in the majority to level 5. The case number rise has been steadily low enough for the last four weeks to show that there is no huge explosion of cases.

We're 7 months on from that now... We need to learn to live with this thing, while protecting business and the economy.

The communication and "do as I say, not as I do" actions from those giving the orders had been diabolical.

Yep, exactly.

We can lock down now, then gradually reopen, and guess what'll happen then.

Is the plan to just keep locking down until there's a vaccine?

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not doubting that it's tough. I've been babysitting for my sister more than usual as I have the time. The first time was a few months back and she was so happy, telling me they haven't had a moment to themselves since February.

What I am suggesting is that it is easier if you have a young family to adhere to the guidelines. That's all. It already suits parents' lifestyle to a degree. Getting into a groove and staying in an insular bubble is what parents seem to do anyway. They're never too far away from their children. The stereotype of not seeing your friends once they have kids isn't without merit. Priorities shift once children enter the equation. Parents are happy to stay home more than single people.

I'm a few years ahead of Molloy in that my youngest is 6 and eldest is 9. They have had a great year and have a bubble of friends on our road that they could safely interact with as all the parents are reliable, sensible people.

We were strict at the start but it's been straight forward enough splitting my time between work and parenting as work hasn't been massively busy and the kids have been able to play safely outside (live on a cul-de-sac).

I've family with older kids who have struggled with the lack of social outlet and I've family with younger kids who have had a similar experience to Molloy.

I think the biggest thing for me is that I don't mind not socialising. If I was in my 20s I'd probably be struggling to be honest.

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

More information communicated better is never a bad thing.

The problem is that too many people are resorting to facebook for their information.

This is a problem. The amount of rubbish that I hear from family and colleagues is mad and 99% of it comes from FB and Twitter.

In the last week, I have been in both Blanchardstown Mall and Pavillions in Swords. Have to say that the amount of people not bothering with masks or social distancing in Blanch was disturbing.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

If an overwhelming number had been doing what they should have then, by definition, we wouldn't be having the problem we are now having. The numbers simply wouldn't be near where they are. Most probably are following the guidelines, but clearly not enough are.

I don't at all agree with this.

What on earth did they expect when things gradually reopened?
There was no way on hell the case rate was doing to stay in the low double figures.
We had a concrete reason for the first lockdown. Protect the vulnerable by flattening the curve and protect the health service from being overrun. Essentially buying more time. Well that was 7 months ago, the curve was flattened. The HSE were disgraceful in their attempt to protect the vulnerable by actively allowing covid into nursing homes, which, when the dust settles will be down to be the biggest scandal of this whole thing.

As I said already this is a management issue within the HSE that they are trying to solve by recommending severe actions to the whole country. There's no way the whole country should be going from level to 2 in the majority to level 5. The case number rise has been steadily low enough for the last four weeks to show that there is no huge explosion of cases.

We're 7 months on from that now... We need to learn to live with this thing, while protecting business and the economy.

The communication and "do as I say, not as I do" actions from those giving the orders had been diabolical.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

So give us the data, and the models used and specifically tell us what the concern is.

Are we going to run out of hospital beds? ICU beds? Specifically what steps have been taken by the HSE to prepare for a second wave that was absolutely inevitable?

Is the concern for the old and vulnerable? Again, what specific steps have been taken to enable them to cocoon more effectively? What are we doing with nursing homes to prevent the same outbreak as last time?

No offense awec but your the one throwing around phrases like 'screaming incompetence' with no more information than I have. I'm merely suggesting that the spiralling numbers could be down to societal factors and a lack of compliance - not incompetence around the management of the pandemic by the Government. It could be a mix of both or it could be entirely the fault of the Government and NPHET.

There was reporting last month that ICU capacity was insufficient but that available staff was the major issue behind there not being more capacity. As for care homes I understand that they have a testing schedule now to prevent another disaster.

I don't ultimately have answers to all these questions, maybe the internet can help you out, but I'm also not going to make accusations about competence or second guess medical experts with my current level of insight.

Out of interest - do you think any of these people are following the guidelines:

[Deleted User]

molloyjh wrote: »

Why? A young family just introduces an entirely different set of issues. For example at the time in her life when she most needed social interaction with other kids my daughter had to do without. Not only that, but the grandparents that she saw all the time were taken away for moths too. Her entire world was turned upside down. And through that my wife & I had to manage full time jobs & caring for her full-time as well. Everything suffered. Her well being, work, our own well being.

Now we're facing into winter when outdoor activities are going to be significantly reduced compared to the last 6 months. But there are no indoor activities to take their place. Whereas last year we could have gone to play centres, this year we need to find something else to pass all those hours & days. And if we're in a lockdown situation we would have to do that without being able to fall back on family to look after her & give us a break. Which is fairly tiring to say the least.

That's not to say that we have it worse than anyone else, its just that each scenario just presents an entirely different set of challenges. If schools stay open then we need to limit our circle further somewhere else as her being in pre-school itself makes it larger. But someone who is living alone can afford to include people in their circle that my wife & I can't, such as a few friends etc.

I'm not doubting that it's tough. I've been babysitting for my sister more than usual as I have the time. The first time was a few months back and she was so happy, telling me they haven't had a moment to themselves since February.

What I am suggesting is that it is easier if you have a young family to adhere to the guidelines. That's all. It already suits parents' lifestyle to a degree. Getting into a groove and staying in an insular bubble is what parents seem to do anyway. They're never too far away from their children. The stereotype of not seeing your friends once they have kids isn't without merit. Priorities shift once children enter the equation. Parents are happy to stay home more than single people.

molloyjh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More information communicated better is never a bad thing.

The problem is that too many people are resorting to facebook for their information.

Just to be clear, I never said more info was bad. The above is clearly true. I just don't believe that more info will lead to better outcomes. We have more than enough compelling info as it is and the people at large are failing. I dont see how more info will address that, no matter how well communicated. Remember, people like awec here looking for modelling data are not exactly the average Joe Soap. The population at large want small, easily digestible messages. We saw the confusion some simple guidelines caused a couple of months ago purely because people didn't read them and, as you said, just got the info from somewhere else like social media.