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

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You said we can go back to close to normal and drop other restrictions. I called that nonsense it is and you have no evidence to back up such a statement.
[/U][/I][/B]

No i didn't. I'm not reading the rest of your post as this is simply not the context of what I said.

You said Masks are the grinding life to a halt.

I said if Masks were kept and all other restrictions lifted life could return to normal - as in people would be allowed to do a bunch of stuff they currently can't. As contrast, I said if Mask use was abolished but all other restrictions kept in place we would be in the same situation we are right now with respect to economic and social impact. Ie. MASKS are not the thing stopping normal life - the restrictions are.

There would be huge impacts to masks being the only line of defence, but your point was Masks are the cause of life grinding to a halt and 150million people in poverty.

The point and context of what I said was removing masks and not restrictions would have basically no impact on social or economic factors. Removing the restrictions and not the masks would have a big impact on social and economic factors.

If the government said tomorrow that you can visit whomever you want, that you can go to pubs and clubs, that concerts can start back up, all shops and gyms etc can open - but the only thing to be kept is mask wearing during these things.... do you think we would see people act and socialise normally, or trend in that diretion? Yes or No?

I say Yes (rightly or wrongly), your point is the answer is No.

If the government said tomorrow that you don't have to wear a mask anywhere, but clubs, pubs, shops are to remain closed, you can't visit households etc... do you think we would see people act and socialise normally, or trend in that direction. Yes or No?

I think the answer is obviously No because lockdown restrictions are the big issue, but you say Yes because it is Masks that stop people from doing things.

What is impacting the restaurants?
(a) Not being allowed to open
(b) people having to wear a mask when they are making an order?

Your point is that the answer is B.
My point is that the answer is emphatically A.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No i didn't. I'm not reading the rest of your post as this is simply not the context of what I said.

You said Masks are the grinding life to a halt.

I said if Masks were kept and all other restrictions lifted life could return to normal - as in people would be allowed to do a bunch of stuff they currently can't. As contrast, I said if Mask use was abolished but all other restrictions kept in place we would be in the same situation we are right now with respect to economic and social impact. Ie. MASKS are not the thing stopping normal life - the restrictions are.

There would be huge impacts to masks being the only line of defence, but your point was Masks are the cause of life grinding to a halt and 150million people in poverty.

The point and context of what I said was removing masks and not restrictions would have basically no impact on social or economic factors. Removing the restrictions and not the masks would have a big impact on social and economic factors.

If the government said tomorrow that you can visit whomever you want, that you can go to pubs and clubs, that concerts can start back up, all shops and gyms etc can open - but the only thing to be kept is mask wearing during these things.... do you think we would see people act and socialise normally, or trend in that diretion? Yes or No?

I say Yes (rightly or wrongly), your point is the answer is No.

If the government said tomorrow that you don't have to wear a mask anywhere, but clubs, pubs, shops are to remain closed, you can't visit households etc... do you think we would see people act and socialise normally, or trend in that direction. Yes or No?

I think the answer is obviously No because lockdown restrictions are the big issue, but you say Yes because it is Masks that stop people from doing things.

What is impacting the restaurants?
(a) Not being allowed to open
(b) people having to wear a mask when they are making an order?

Your point is that the answer is B.
My point is that the answer is emphatically A.

Something something nonsense, I've provided evidence you've provided nothing. End of.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you could just quarantine people

Take their details and check up on them: cries of "police state" and "wha abou' me Sybil liberdees?"

Trust people to do the right thing: people take the piss.


Today the usual Cryinair jumping up and down on the populist bandwagon.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There are over 90% negative results every day. That would suggest a high level of immunity.

That would suggest that those with negative results have yet to contract the virus, not that those 90% are immune.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Take their details and check up on them: cries of "police state" and "wha abou' me Sybil liberdees?"

Trust people to do the right thing: people take the piss.


Today the usual Cryinair jumping up and down on the populist bandwagon.

quarantine hotel sounds just fine to me

Penfailed wrote: »

That would suggest that those with negative results have yet to contract the virus, not that those 90% are immune.

I wouldn't agree,
If we're sampling targeted groups with a high probability of having it and we're still finding every day 90%+ don't have it, there is some emerging evidence to suggest underlying immunity.

AUDI20 wrote: »

You could read it both ways, which ever suits your opinion. could also mean that 90% haven't been infected as of yet.

It's very difficult to read it both ways when your actively targeting suspected cases and not finding them.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Y
When Norway looked at this, it said that at low circulation, the public health consequences were so minimal that it was not clear they worked and, even if they did work, it reckoned about 200,000 people would have to wear a mask fully for a week to prevent one infection.

Personally I equate mask wearing to a lot of the security theatre that surrounds air travel.

Does it theoretically stop terrorism? Does taking your shoes off and not being allowed bottles of water really stop terrorism? Sure, I guess, in the sense that it could deter some very specific things.

But for all the time, cost and hassle that it causes is it really stopping terrorism or is it all just for show, is it just there so that something is being seen to be done?

Same with masks. I'm not going to argue that a proper mask doesn't catch droplets from your mouth and decrease the chances of spread, but then that isn't the question is it. The question is whether or not those masks are actually addressing the problem at hand in a meaningful way or are they just basically a placebo for the masses. For all the time and effort surrounding them are they actually responsible for a meaningful decrease in cases?

And that is without even asking the question about unintended consequences, for example people using the same mask over and over and so actually increasing their chances of contamination. Or the serious pollution issue from the millions of discarded masks.

I think these are all valid concerns but just as with air travel security we are not allowed to question the narrative, to do so is to put lives at risk apparently...

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If you assume something you then go test that theory that's exactly what's happening. BCG seems to have an effect and now I'm just after reading the MMR one could also help, most of the Irish population have had those.

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20201015/Certain-live-attenuated-vaccines-can-prevent-severe-complications-of-COVID-19.aspx

Not to ignore the rest of what you said, it's just a different and very complicated discussion when you start getting into antibodies, t-cells etc.

Yes and the theory was tested in Madrid and New York by randomly selecting thousands of people and testing them for the antibodies, Results were around 20 - 25% had the antibodies. We still don't know how long they last for.

Do you think the number would be higher here? I don't see how it could be. We had a bit more advance warning and our initial lockdown meant we never experienced a real surge like those places did.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Gets worse by the day, unfortunately

Retailer Pamela Scott to close 12 stores with the loss of 104 jobs
Closures include landmark shop on Dublin’s Grafton Street

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/retailer-pamela-scott-to-close-12-stores-with-the-loss-of-104-jobs-1.4381803

we are approaching 25% unemployment... with 15% of that being long term

Where did you get 25% from? I can see it recorded as 15% at the moment and that includes the people on the PUP.

PUP claims hit a lockdown peak of 600,000 in early May and a slowdown in those returning to work before the re-imposition of restrictions has kept the unemployment rate, including those on the emergency payment, stuck at around 15%.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-ireland-unemployment-idUSL8N2H45KB

There will be more clothing retailers going bust. I haven't bought clothes in ages. What's the point? All I need these days is clothes for work.

MadYaker wrote: »

Where did you get 25% from? I can see it recorded as 15% at the moment and that includes the people on the PUP.



https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-ireland-unemployment-idUSL8N2H45KB

There will be more clothing retailers going bust. I haven't bought clothes in ages. What's the point? All I need these days is clothes for work.

that 15% is 30.9.2020

before countrywide level 3, 3 counties L4 now.

Before pamela scott announcement too

MadYaker wrote: »

Where did you get 25% from? I can see it recorded as 15% at the moment and that includes the people on the PUP.



https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-ireland-unemployment-idUSL8N2H45KB

There will be more clothing retailers going bust. I haven't bought clothes in ages. What's the point? All I need these days is clothes for work.

....... we got a great life going in Ireland dont we

MadYaker wrote: »

Yes and the theory was tested in Madrid and New York by randomly selecting thousands of people and testing them for the antibodies, Results were around 20 - 25% had the antibodies. We still don't know how long they last for.

Do you think the number would be higher here? I don't see how it could be. We had a bit more advance warning and our initial lockdown meant we never experienced a real surge like those places did.

I think your confusing things, am I understanding you correctly that if the BCG and MMR are effective they should show Antibodies?
Antibodies testing is timely, it's guesswork, you don't know how long they last. What were trying to get to is a place where the worst outcomes of Covid can be avoided, BCG, MMR are showing good signs, there now giving BCG to UK health workers that is a very positive move for a population who have had the vaccine.