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

Blut2 wrote: »

How do you explain the complete dropoff in Swedish deaths, given their policy hasn't changed at all, other than herd immunity?

Their daily deaths quite clearly started declining from mid-April onwards, which would suggest that prediction of "within a month or two" was spot on.

Sweden`s deaths dropped off same time as anywhere else. Their epicenter, Stockholm, empties out for their long Summer holiday. Soon as the season was over and they started coming back, cases started rising Not only in Stockholm, but holiday regions where those from Stockholm holidayed. Areas that up until that had low numbers.
If you look at Ireland`s rise in cases and Sweden`s there is around a two weeks time lag and their cases are rising.

From the 9th to the 16th.Sweden has had 4,749 new confirmed cases and 24 deaths. Sweden has also had it`s first case of a Covid-19 re-infection.
Make what you like of that, but it doesn`t look like herd immunity to me

MadYaker wrote: »

Especially if it means we'll b back on level 2 for christmas, I think people will abide.

This sounds v similar to the ‘save the summer’ nonsense that went on earlier this year. Except we didnt - anything worthwhile was closed and we were hemmed in like North Koreans.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Then even stricter measures will be needed. I dont think anyone wants that either.

I completely disagree that public backing is not there either going on opinion polls. Most wanted increased measures before now.

Most people are not selfish in this regard and will actually follow the rules to protect the health of themselves and others.

We’re already about to decimate the economy and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work a few short weeks before Christmas for the second time this year, how much stricter can we get than that?

I can guarantee you that the majority of the people who will be out of work (again) on Monday would disagree with you, they aren’t happy to be out of work again and I don’t think that makes them selfish.
They are not backing this, and they are the people who are growing increasingly frustrated by all of this.

The people who are going to be back on the PUP payment are among the most financially vulnerable in society but beyond a few words of half hearted lip service, those who won’t be financially effected don’t care and are willing to offer them up as sacrifice all in the name of ‘health’ and saving lives.

I would argue that putting people through that hardship for the second time this year instead of directing all resources and effort towards those who are actually vulnerable to this illness is beyond selfish.

It’s very easy to back something that will involve more personal sacrifice from others but little to no change of lifestyle or hardship for you (figurative you, not literal you).
Some of the loudest voices in favour of restrictions are those who are retired on comfortable pensions and those in secure jobs who can work from home, and that’s very telling.

The narrative is changing, the appetite for restrictions and lockdowns isn’t what it was back in March and as time goes on, and compliance is wavering by the day.
The problem is that the government are very quick to put us into these situations but repeatedly struggle with plans to get us back out of them.
The BS they put us through in the summer (repeatedly changing the roadmap, constantly adding 3 week extensions) won’t be tolerated so patiently the second time around.

MadYaker wrote: »

Especially if it means we'll b back on level 2 for christmas, I think people will abide.

Will you show me the criteria for any county to get back to level 2 or even get out of level 4 or 5.
It's a trick question, they have never published the criteria, same way they have not published the science underpinning any restrictions or mandates. Or published any data to show the benefit of any restriction.
Know when your being played for fool!! Time common sense and facts came into the equation.

Christmas is fecked, there's no saving it, we had our new years even booze the night the pubs close for the rest of the year.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Will you show me the criteria for any county to get back to level 2 or even get out of level 4 or 5.
It's a trick question, they have never published the criteria, same way they have not published the science underpinning any restrictions or mandates. Or published any data to show the benefit of any restriction.
Know when your being played for fool!! Time common sense and facts came into the equation.

Christmas is fecked, there's no saving it, we had our new years even booze the night the pubs close for the rest of the year.

Sure during the summer they kept saying ‘we aren’t quite where we need to be’ to open things back up, when we had less than 5 cases per day and no deaths.
They’re making it up as they go along and expecting a pat on the back for it while they destroy the economy.

walus wrote: »

What makes you think that?

I think MadYacker is deluded if he thinks we’ll be going back to level 2 for xmas even if we went into level 5 right now.

Then we’ll see what the “ polls” might say.

Gael23 wrote: »

Once we have a vaccine, how fast will restrictions be removed?

2-3 years if Mr Holohan gets his way...

charlie14 wrote: »

Sweden`s deaths dropped off same time as anywhere else. Their epicenter, Stockholm, empties out for their long Summer holiday. Soon as the season was over and they started coming back, cases started rising Not only in Stockholm, but holiday regions where those from Stockholm holidayed. Areas that up until that had low numbers.
If you look at Ireland`s rise in cases and Sweden`s there is around a two weeks time lag and their cases are rising.

From the 9th to the 16th.Sweden has had 4,749 new confirmed cases and 24 deaths. Sweden has also had it`s first case of a Covid-19 re-infection.
Make what you like of that, but it doesn`t look like herd immunity to me

The deaths started dropping off in April - long before any summer holidays:



Again, for reference. So again - why did this happen, if not herd immunity? What explanation can you give for this if you're claiming its not herd immunity? Because its not from them implementing a lockdown.

SusieBlue wrote: »

There was a woman on the local radio yesterday from Cork who was unwell earlier this year so got a referral for a gynaecologist, who discovered a ‘shadow’ on her womb. The consultant said she would need further tests to determine what the issue was, but then we went into lockdown and her follow up appointments were cancelled.

She finally got seen to in august where she learned that the ‘shadow’ had turned into a tumour the size of a watermelon over that space of time, and spread to other areas of her body too.
She’s now had to have a full hysterectomy and is waiting to find out if her cancer is terminal or not.

She is a young woman with two small children. She won’t be the first or last to become seriously ill due to missed appointments and cancer screenings during these dragged out lockdowns.
The fact that this woman and many others couldn’t access necessary healthcare for 6 months is an absolute disgrace and complete inexcusable.

Why does their health not matter? Why do their deaths not matter? Why is coronavirus more important than their suffering?

It’s beyond selfish and heartless to expect people to go without healthcare for months on end instead of just having those who are at risk cocoon. It’s so so selfish. Coronavirus isn’t the only illness or the most important illness a person can get.

There is no balance whatsoever here.
The cost of the sacrifices we are making is way too high and I guarantee after the inevitable tribunals in a few years we will look back in horror at how we allowed thousands of young people die preventable deaths, sacrificing them and their futures under the false premise of ‘saving lives’ from coronavirus.

There seems to be a lot more anger and opposition out there the last few days. For every one comment I’ve seen supporting the idea of level 5, I’ve seen at least 10 against it.
Hopefully this is the start of the tide turning against King Tony.

.
That is one outstanding post.

Everything you put there is spot on. Nearly.

Only thing I disagree with is king Tony.
Should be more plonker Tony.

Why the hell this government listen to him is something I just can't understand.

Even the W.H.O are telling world leaders that lockdowns are not the answer.

As for the numbers nphet are inventing, I just don't know where to start.
.

I'd say they will let us go another few weeks as is maybe level 4 ,then go on level 5 for the weeks up until the new year.

I know pubs and stuff aren't fully open, But they won't want thousands of people out and about having fun at Christmas parties (not that there would be many I'd imagine) but to stop them all getting together anyway and packing the streets getting pissed up in outdoor scenarios. Same as new years.

Certain stores will be open and deemed essential for gift buying. Numbers will most likely drop under level 5 and they'll ease it Christmas week/weekend for family members to visit as per certain guidelines only.

Or none of the above

MadYaker wrote: »

Especially if it means we'll b back on level 2 for christmas, I think people will abide.

You can't see the psychology at work here? The carrot and stick approach?

What assurance do you have that this would happen?

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

I'd say they will let us go another few weeks as is maybe level 4 ,then go on level 5 for the weeks up until the new year.

I know pubs and stuff aren't fully open, But they won't want thousands of people out and about having fun at Christmas parties (not that there would be many I'd imagine) but to stop them all getting together anyway and packing the streets getting pissed up in outdoor scenarios. Same as new years.

Certain stores will be open and deemed essential for gift buying. Numbers will most likely drop under level 5 and they'll ease it Christmas week/weekend for family members to visit as per certain guidelines only.

Or none of the above

Nobody will follow any rules at Christmas.

January is going to be very grim

SusieBlue wrote: »

We’re already about to decimate the economy

no, we aren't.
what we are doing is just like we did last time, prioritise the essential and high contributing parts of the economy, while if needs be shutting down the non-essential and low contributing parts of the economy so as to minimise the spread of the virus and keep the main parts of the economy going on a basic level.
the economy will absolutely take a dip, like it did last time, but the reality is that it was always going to do so, there was absolutely no way the economy was going to escape serious effects due to covid 19, which is why we have taken the balanced approach we have taken, because doing otherwise would have actually eradicated the economy in all likely hood.

SusieBlue wrote: »

and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work a few short weeks before Christmas for the second time this year, how much stricter can we get than that?

most of those will in all likely hood only be on a temporary basis.
if we didn't take a balanced approach it would likely be permanent job losses for the majority of those.
we could get very very strict if we wanted to, army out on the streets of the towns and cities patrolling, none of us want that, which is why people should be abiding by what is there, because restrictions aren't going away until such time as it is possible to remove or relax them and not abiding by them is just going to mean more and stricter ones, punishing those who are abiding.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I can guarantee you that the majority of the people who will be out of work (again) on Monday would disagree with you, they aren’t happy to be out of work again and I don’t think that makes them selfish.

you can't guarantee any such thing, the poles don't back you up, i would expect you have not done any survey of all of those people to gauge their thoughts, and as explained before, the various opinions on this issue, even the ones which all of the facts and science are against, are not based on certain lines.

SusieBlue wrote: »

They are not backing this, and they are the people who are growing increasingly frustrated by all of this.

many of them are, because they know that by railing against them and not abiding by them, they are just going to make things worse for themselvs and the rest of us.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The people who are going to be back on the PUP payment are among the most financially vulnerable in society but beyond a few words of half hearted lip service, those who won’t be financially effected don’t care and are willing to offer them up as sacrifice all in the name of ‘health’ and saving lives.

no, we aren't, we just realise the realities of what would quite likely happen if we didn't take the balanced approach we are taking, and we are not going to support going down any route that will actually do real and maybe even irreparable damage to our country, all for a hope that we might, perhapse, maybe could protect a small amount of jobs which in actual fact would likely be lost regardless of what approach we took.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I would argue that putting people through that hardship for the second time this year instead of directing all resources and effort towards those who are actually vulnerable to this illness is beyond selfish.

no, it's not, as we can direct all of the resources we like to the vulnerable, however if the virus is still running high in the community, then the vulnerable cannot be protected, eeven if we locked them away indefinitely.
the only workable viable option is virus suppression and that means all of us doing our bit.

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s very easy to back something that will involve more personal sacrifice from others but little to no change of lifestyle or hardship for you (figurative you, not literal you).

and it's easy to back the sollutions you are looking for when you won't be the one to have to make the actual difficult decisions when the realities of what you support come home to roost.
the ones who will have to do that are the elected politicians, and if you think things are bad now, if we went with the sollutions you would like they would be 100 times worse.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Some of the loudest voices in favour of restrictions are those who are retired on comfortable pensions and those in secure jobs who can work from home, and that’s very telling.

again, you don't know this to be the case, so nothing is very telling given as i said, there are no specific lines along which the both for and against the necessary public health measures and the balanced approach exist.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The narrative is changing, the appetite for restrictions and lockdowns isn’t what it was back in March and as time goes on, and compliance is wavering by the day.

the narative is the same, there was never an appetite for any restrictions, none of us like or want restrictions, however we recognise that they are necessary, and that viewpoint hasn't changed and is still around the same numbers, as shown by the poles.
wavering compliance will just lead to more and stricter restrictions, and the vast vast majority already know this, hence any growth in non-compliance is still extremely tiny.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The problem is that the government are very quick to put us into these situations but repeatedly struggle with plans to get us back out of them.

because a small number of idiots keep making things difficult for them.
this whole thing is essentially an experiment for countries and their people, we have all had to learn on the job, there was no dress rehersal for this.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The BS they put us through in the summer (repeatedly changing the roadmap, constantly adding 3 week extensions) won’t be tolerated so patiently the second time around.

the extensions were necessary because the roadmap was rushed.
they rushed the roadmap because people wanted one, so they gave one.
it doesn't actually matter what will and won't be tolerated, because people like you are not going to win against the government and the rest of the people, the more people rail against what is there, the more and stricter restrictions we will get.
the people railing against everything are on the wrong side of everything and they have nothing backing them, they have lost, and that is good for us all.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

People will still get sick and die from Covid with a vaccine.

Do people realise that?

That’s the paradox, if Covid was killing children and making them ill a vaccine would be the messiah, but it’s likely going to have little effect for obese old people.

Anyway, it will depend on social media and where it sets the moral checkpoint for an acceptable level of deaths of 88 year olds in nursing homes as to when the restrictions can be removed

And there in lies the problem for this so called 6 week “circuit breaker” (LOCK DOWN )
We were the slowest nation in Europe to reopen last time. I’ve no doubt our circuit breaker won’t be 6 weeks , it’ll be at least 6 months thus allowing the government in April 2021 to go to level 2 when coming out of influenza season.

It’s no coincidence that the pup payments scheme is signed off now till April or May 2021.

I can only imagine the state of the economy and people’s general mental health coming out of a 6 month imposed lockdown. Grim is too soft a word to describe it and NPHET will have blood on their hands from suicide increase and non Covid late health diagnosis.

Media / NPHET / politicians will answer for this in the years to come