Covid 19 Part XXVI- 50,993 ROI (1,852 deaths) 28,040 NI (621 deaths) (19/10) Read OP

Necro · 17-10-2020 08:20AM

The more I thought about it overnight the more I came to the conclusion that going to Level 5 makes no sense unless we're closing the schools again. If you think about it every single socialising aspect we have in the country is already shut or extremely limited in the numbers who can attend.

Household visits even are now prohibited. So the only vector that still have large gatherings... are schools.

I mean yes there are still issues with house parties but really the government need to enforce the current rules rather than shutting everything else down.

Basically without shutting schools moving up a level or two is absolutely pointless.

shinzon · 17-10-2020 08:25AM

Ministers need to cop the **** on I mean this rubbish from the indo today

The minister said the Cabinet may "modify" the Level 5 restrictions so they were not as severe as set out to allow people travel further from their homes. "It would be essentially Level 4 but we could call it Level 5."

.

And what happens if level 4 doesnt work NPHET recommends Level 5 again where do they go from there Level 4.75

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Shin

CruelSummer · 17-10-2020 08:27AM

s1ippy wrote: »

If you cut the chains of transmission by extinguishing the avenues the virus uses to transmit, the lower rate will mean you can safely open segments of society again.

Schools were done recklessly. They're the root cause of all this transmission currently. It doesn't have to be like that next time.

Srsly tho now I have to go get sugary cereal for this bad bad hangover, I'm rewatching Animaniacs because they're making two more seasons.

Where is your evidence schools are the ‘cause’ of this? Yet another poster strangely obsessed with targeting the young + denying them their education. Does it bother such posters that children are back learning in their classrooms with their peers? They are not affected by Covid 19.
If household visits are banned - they would not be transmitting the virus to a vulnerable person. If they live with a vulnerable person, they should take action for this wave. This doesn’t mean closing all schools.

Necro · 17-10-2020 08:30AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

Where is your evidence schools are the ‘cause’ of this? Yet another poster strangely obsessed with targeting the young + denying them their education. Does it bother such posters that children are back learning in their classrooms with their peers? They are not affected by Covid 19.
If household visits are banned - they would not be transmitting the virus to a vulnerable person. If they live with a vulnerable person, they should take action for this wave. This doesn’t mean closing all schools.

Actually infections in the 15-24 age range have increased by 200% since August.

0-15 about 160%.

But like I said above, moving up levels when all normal social gathering places are already shut or extremely limited in numbers makes no sense without closing the one place where large gatherings are still happening.

I'd much prefer the government to keep them open and just focus on enforcing the current guidelines as much as possible.

CruelSummer · 17-10-2020 08:31AM

s1ippy wrote: »

Bring in eviction ban, esp for businesses
Reinstate mortgage holiday
Close school buildings and limit visits to nursing homes
5km rule except for work/supplies
Pubs and restaurants takeaway only

A month and a half of hibernation, properly enforced, will see this bastard virus with nowhere to spread. Why did we not do it before all this damage was already done and the tide is harder to turn???

I'm wrecked from it I'm going eating coco pops and watching cartoons.

And what do we do if it comes back again after all that?

Roger_007 · 17-10-2020 08:32AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

Children mixed all summer long on camps, GAA training, play dates. There were huge amount of people dining indoors on staycations & none of this resulted in any major increase in cases. It seems to point to Covid being a seasonal virus - which we will have to live with ultimately...

The vast majority of the mixing with kids over the summer took place out doors. It’s a very different thing when they are all congregated together indoors with windows and doors closed.
It’s not that the virus just prefers cold weather. A virus is only seasonal because it spreads more easily when people are in closer proximity to each other in confined spaces for longer periods of time.

Leftwaffe · 17-10-2020 08:32AM

Are we not already at level 4 technically? I was Googling the stupid plan there and can't see any difference.

CruelSummer · 17-10-2020 08:33AM

Necro wrote: »

Actually infections in the 15-24 age range have increased by 200% since August.

0-15 about 160%.

But like I said above, moving up levels when all normal social gathering places are already shut or extremely limited in numbers makes no sense without closing the one place where large gatherings are still happening.

I'd much prefer the government to keep them open and just focus on enforcing the current guidelines as much as possible.

That suggest from Junior Cert up. So you’re talking about from transition year to college. Children finish secondary school at 17/18 years old. This is not all school levels, what about preschool, primary and lower secondary? Why should they have to close?

Necro · 17-10-2020 08:34AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

That suggest from Junior Cert up. So you’re talking about from transition year to college. Children finish secondary school at 17/18 years old. This is not all school levels, what about preschool, primary and lower secondary? Why should they have to close?

Both age categories have seen large increases in infections, also did you read my full post?

I don't want the schools closed, I want proper enforcement of the current restrictions.

zerosugarbuzz · 17-10-2020 08:34AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

And what do we do if it comes back again after all that?

Which of course it will. How much damage will be done until the realisation kicks in that we just have to live with the virus.

Necro · 17-10-2020 08:37AM

Redordeadqwwer wrote: »

Are we not already at level 4 technically? I was Googling the stupid plan there and can't see any difference.

I think we're actually at Level 5 for household visits? Though the difference is negligible in that regard.

I can't see what moving up another level or even 2 does without closing the schools.

I'd rather not have that happen, so hence my preference on developing proper and active enforcement of the current restrictions.

iguana · 17-10-2020 08:38AM

Redordeadqwwer wrote: »

Are we not already at level 4 technically? I was Googling the stupid plan there and can't see any difference.

Gyms and non-essential retail are still open at level 3.

prunudo · 17-10-2020 08:39AM

obi604 wrote: »

In the latter half of the summer, there was no real lockdown and yet the cases stayed relatively low........still a few but nothing major.

What made this all change so badly in the last few weeks?

People letting their gaurd down, not schools themselves but the whole interaction that goes with coming and going to school, and possibly reducing sunlight also.
I don't think enough emphasis is put on having a healthy immune system, stress and fatigue effect the body more than we realise. All this uncertainty and living unnormal lives must be having an impact on peoples well being.

xhomelezz · 17-10-2020 08:41AM

Imo opinion schools and childcare should be open only for kids of healthcare workers, cops etc. And kids from risk environment. All others should be studying from home at the moment. Plus properly enforced level 3 restrictions. But that's the problem, isn't it.

MerlinSouthDub · 17-10-2020 08:42AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

Where is your evidence schools are the ‘cause’ of this? Yet another poster strangely obsessed with targeting the young + denying them their education. Does it bother such posters that children are back learning in their classrooms with their peers? They are not affected by Covid 19.
If household visits are banned - they would not be transmitting the virus to a vulnerable person. If they live with a vulnerable person, they should take action for this wave. This doesn’t mean closing all schools.

All of the evidence shows schools are not a major source of transmission. The spike in infection rates is clearly being driven by young adults. The anti school agenda just baffles me, particularly when it seems to be based on pre conceived ideas rather than actual evidence.

Polar101 · 17-10-2020 08:47AM

Necro wrote: »

I can't see what moving up another level or even 2 does without closing the schools.

I'd rather not have that happen, so hence my preference on developing proper and active enforcement of the current restrictions.

Level 5 would put a lot of people out of work, and because there would be less shops to go to, that would probably cut down traffic numbers (=less people moving about).

I just don't think Level 3 -> Level 5 will actually do too much to help with the virus situation. And I'm not too convinced any of the current restrictions can actually be enforced.

OscarMIlde · 17-10-2020 08:54AM

Necro wrote: »

The more I thought about it overnight the more I came to the conclusion that going to Level 5 makes no sense unless we're closing the schools again. If you think about it every single socialising aspect we have in the country is already shut or extremely limited in the numbers who can attend.

Household visits even are now prohibited. So the only vector that still have large gatherings... are schools.

I mean yes there are still issues with house parties but really the government need to enforce the current rules rather than shutting everything else down.

Basically without shutting schools moving up a level or two is absolutely pointless.

The thing is though the kids have already mixed with each other for a month now. If more transmission is occurring in the schools it's because children are catching it from their household and bringing it into the school. Under these restrictions there should be minimal new household cases.

CruelSummer · 17-10-2020 08:55AM

Necro wrote: »

Both age categories have seen large increases in infections, also did you read my full post?

I don't want the schools closed, I want proper enforcement of the current restrictions.

Sorry Necro, there's something wrong with my smart phone. My full reply was to say that from Junior Cert upwards has the biggest increase. I understand this group are in masks and sitting 1 metre apart in classrooms. The Primary Age children, especially the younger children (Junior - 2nd), are in pods, and 3rd -6th sit 1 metre apart but they're not in masks. This group hasn't seen a huge increase in cases. Those statistics you're posting reflect what's happening in the community, which could well be a seasonal event.

MelbourneMan · 17-10-2020 08:57AM

Necro wrote: »

Actually infections in the 15-24 age range have increased by 200% since August.

0-15 about 160%.

But like I said above, moving up levels when all normal social gathering places are already shut or extremely limited in numbers makes no sense without closing the one place where large gatherings are still happening.

I would like to correct this misconception. Any decrease in social interaction activities make sense to reduce transmission of the virus. That other interaction events are not closed off does not affect the benefit of those that are. As we have explained before, the general expectation that activities should be restricted predominantly according to their contribution to the transmission chain is mistaken. The importance of the activity to society and the economy are far greater influences on the consideration. The goal is to reduce transmission by curtailing the activities that have the least harmful consequences on people's lives, and these are not necessarily to the sectors with highest transmission rate in themselves. It is the overall reduction that matters.

MelbourneMan · 17-10-2020 09:02AM

xhomelezz wrote: »

Plus properly enforced level 3 restrictions. But that's the problem, isn't it.

Statistically, no it isnt really a problem at all. Certainly, it would put further downward pressure on R0 if all complied fully with the advice, but the effect of non compliance, other than irritation to the compliant, is negligible in the context of the effect of the measure in the levels themselves. Far too much prominence is given to the compliance / non-compliance issue than in merits in the effect on transmission.

MelbourneMan · 17-10-2020 09:05AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It baffles me that people think the lack of evidence of schools being part of the problem means that they're 100% unquestionably safe. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is a general tendency to over simply virus spread into having an impact/not having an impact, or safe/unsafe, or this is safer than that therefore we should not be be prevented from doing this. etc.
But it cannot be looked at in this black and white manner.

The chain of transmission has many many links, and all contribute to the overall spread and R0. Individual factors have greater or lesser contributions, and also have different levels of importance to society in general. It is never true to say schools are or are not having an impact. Where ever people interface, there is an impact.

The task of the politicians is to weigh up the sum of all factors contributing to spread, and weigh up the the impact on society, health, and the economy of curtailing these activities to varying degrees, and balancing those two elements with the capability of the health service to handle the caseload.

MerlinSouthDub · 17-10-2020 09:05AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

International travel wasn't a problem, but then it was.

The nursing homes weren't a problem, but then they were.

It baffles me that people think the lack of evidence of schools being part of the problem means that they're 100% unquestionably safe. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But there is evidence - have you read the Alisdair Munro Twitter thread on ONS data re infection rates by age? It's very clear that the virus spreads much less quickly amongst children. Please read it

grind gremlin · 17-10-2020 09:09AM

CruelSummer wrote: »

Sorry Necro, there's something wrong with my smart phone. My full reply was to say that from Junior Cert upwards has the biggest increase. I understand this group are in masks and sitting 1 metre apart in classrooms. The Primary Age children, especially the younger children (Junior - 2nd), are in pods, and 3rd -6th sit 1 metre apart but they're not in masks. This group hasn't seen a huge increase in cases. Those statistics you're posting reflect what's happening in the community, which could well be a seasonal event.

3rd to 6th don’t sit one metre apart usually... it’s advised they do this ‘where possible’. Not a single class in my school found this possible. They are in pods of 4 to 6. Usually about 30 cm between pupils. It’s a dangerous game they are playing.....

s1ippy · 17-10-2020 09:14AM

Going to meet my nephew in the park for a game of ball, illegal?

Longing · 17-10-2020 09:18AM

Is GAA training at local level still prohibited under level 4. Noticed my local club training last night. 25+

davemckenna25 · 17-10-2020 09:22AM

mcburns07 wrote: »

So why would you expect anyone to buy into the idea of shutting down the country for 6 weeks when we haven't even given Level 3 a week in most of Ireland or Level 4 has had two days of a chance in a few counties. WTF is the point in creating a plan if you throw it out the window immediately. It's completely worthless already. All it gives us was a few numbers to describe the apparent severity of the situation. As I stated in my earlier comment, Level 4 essential services and retail were only defined on Wednesday when Level 4 was brought in for a few counties.

Does it not strike anyone as crazy that the idea of going to Level 5 has been out there for nearly two weeks and they haven't even published a list of businesses / sectors that would be allowed open? In all fairness it's difficult to publish a plan ahead of time when you are making it up as you go along, maybe I should cut them some slack.

I never said or endorsed going to Level 5. I never asked anyone to buy into the idea of level 5, I just don't think you can ask the government to give a plan for 5 or 6 weeks away when we don't know what the numbers will be.

Maybe read someone's post before you bite the head off them.

is_that_so · 17-10-2020 09:23AM

Longing wrote: »

Is GAA training at local level still prohibited under level 4. Noticed my local club training last night. 25+

Yes but should be pods of 15 together. Even at Level 5 people can train individually.

Ger Roe · 17-10-2020 09:24AM

grind gremlin wrote: »

3rd to 6th don’t sit one metre apart usually... it’s advised they do this ‘where possible’. Not a single class in my school found this possible. They are in pods of 4 to 6. Usually about 30 cm between pupils. It’s a dangerous game they are playing.....

This is the experience in my child's secondary school too. Sometimes, when they move to different classes, the membership of the pods change.... even if there are people there that were already with them in another class pod. There was also no attempt to take account of existing friends groups when deciding pod membership. This means that the circle of mixing is increased when they are on breaks and hook up with their friends.

My child was home on Thursday because of a teacher shortage. Various year groups are taking a day a week off for that reason. Teachers and pupils disappear without explanation and the rumour machine runs rife.

We get the occasional text saying that a case has been identified 'within the school community' but that DOH has said to keep calm and carry on. So far, it is four confirmed cases, but that does not take account of the number of pupils and teachers 'missing in action'.

The kids themselves can point out these inconsistencies and they are not happy about being treated like this. A previous offer to facilitate online learning has been withdrawn because 'management have decided' that it will not be made available in the current circumstances . IE - Keep Calm, Carry On, and pretend all is normal.

The school's are open, but what quality of service are they providing?

Happydays2020 · 17-10-2020 09:24AM

Is this right in respect to our comparative position? I was getting the sense we were now at the same levels of Spain given the hysteria (not that it should be a target).

https://twitter.com/danobrien20/status/1317030997314195458?s=21

is_that_so · 17-10-2020 09:24AM

s1ippy wrote: »

Going to meet my nephew in the park for a game of ball, illegal?

Unless he's bringing 15 mates, no!

Covid 19 Part XXVI- 50,993 ROI (1,852 deaths) 28,040 NI (621 deaths) (19/10) Read OP

Comments