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

average_runner · 18-10-2020 06:37PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Have some faith! Despite what the resident cranks on here think, the majority of people have been doing everything asked of them....

Numbers are showing different sadly

PTH2009 · 18-10-2020 06:41PM

Intercounty GAA camps doing well in terms of staying in a bubble

Elite Sports should be given an exemption in these new restrictions as its proven they can manage

Tenzor07 · 18-10-2020 06:44PM

average_runner wrote: »

Numbers are showing different sadly

One thing people forget is that if people weren't actually compliant as you suggest then we'd be seeing 7,000+ cases a day and not 1,000.... have more faith... and don't listen to the cranks on here, they thrive on misery..

Happydays2020 · 18-10-2020 06:44PM

PTH2009 wrote: »

Intercounty GAA camps doing well in terms of staying in a bubble

Elite Sports should be given an exemption in these new restrictions as its proven they can manage

They cannot as they have day jobs unless they can work or study from home.

Rrrrrr2 · 18-10-2020 06:48PM

average_runner wrote: »

Current way not working, level 2 failed, level 3 failing. Level 4 or 5 will fail unless its enforce.

The plan I heard is to open pubs for xmas if numbers go down

Nothing “works” when you have an endemic respiratory virus that lives in the respiratory tract of human beings. Unless each one of us singly isolates for at least two months then we are here on loop. We will still be having this same discussion in 12 months time.

18-10-2020 06:50PM

MelbourneMan wrote: »

If I could scotch once and for all, for those still propounding the notion: you cannot protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society carry on with minimal restrictions. It is simply unworkable, and cannot be done even if it were deemed and acceptable strategy to pursue. They elderly, those in care home, nursing homes, hospitals, residential homes of other types, and those with various health vulnerabilities cannot be insulated from the rest of the population. To a great extent, they are the group most reliant on support and care from the rest of the population. It a half baked idea, that a modicum of consideration will reveal to be nonsense. Please spare yourselves and others the trouble of such an impossible delusion.

Excellent post, one of the best in here for a long time.

18-10-2020 06:51PM

sabat wrote: »

Utter delusion. The complete opposite of the truth.

it’s accurate but that doesn’t suit the open up narrative so will be scoffed at in here.

Johnboy1951 · 18-10-2020 06:57PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

One thing people forget is that if people weren't actually compliant as you suggest then we'd be seeing 7,000+ cases a day and not 1,000.... have more faith... and don't listen to the cranks on here, they thrive on misery..

The numbers they test and find 'positive' to their test is not indicative of anything except how many they have tested.

It is the numbers requiring hospitalisation that matters.

On that score, I am under the impression that those with mild to medium illness from Covid are being hospitalised.
If that level of illness was present from 'flu' or other such cause, hospitalisation would not be considered.

I would like to see the lifting of restrictions, with dire warnings to those in all vulnerable groups, to self isolate and do all things possible to remain uninfected.

Let everyone else go about their business as normal, but demand they observe distancing and mask wearing.

Ruining the country for the sake of the few is not something I expect from our government.

end of the road · 18-10-2020 06:58PM

acequion wrote: »

Oh for god's sake!! :rolleyes: You don't think imposing a lockdown on all citizens after months of the harshest restrictions in Europe isn't the stuff of an "authoritative regime"? NPHET, especially Tony Holohan isn't heavy handed in your opinion?

This bull**** of "policing by consent" with no consequences to flouting the rules is, along with Govt incompetence and hiding behind NPHET, the reason we're all being frogmarched back into a soul destroying lockdown. Level 3 restrictions would work fine if they were properly enforced like they are in other countries.

not a chance are our restrictions the harshest in europe, probably the easiest within the EU in reality.

bucketybuck · 18-10-2020 07:03PM

average_runner wrote: »

The plan I heard is to open pubs for xmas if numbers go down

Hang on a minute, they didn't reopen pubs in the middle of summer when cases were in single digits and weeks would go by without any deaths, yet you think there is any chance whatsoever that they will reopen in the middle of winter?

If you think for one second NPHET are not going to be "very concerned" during the christmas period then I have a bridge you might be interested in.

Tenzor07 · 18-10-2020 07:04PM

end of the road wrote: »

not a chance are our restrictions the harshest in europe, probably the easiest within the EU in reality.

Which reality is that then?

Ireland's had a Defacto travel ban, closure of "wet" bars, slowest to move out of lockdown measures in Europe... All for one basic reason... Ireland has one of the worst run health services in Europe, and now we're all facing yet another Lockdown to try patch up all the holes in the money bucket that is the HSE...

faceman · 18-10-2020 07:11PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That figure can change like very fast. They are correct to be proactive rather than reactive.

Yeah, if we're aren't careful Ireland could have "85,000 deaths" all of a sudden :rolleyes:

Oh wait

faceman · 18-10-2020 07:12PM

AlphaDelta1 wrote: »

NPHET have been proven correct. L5 was needed some weeks ago to break the chain of transmission. Looks like we've wasted weeks on trusting politicians over health experts.

Against what measure have NPHET been proven correct?

end of the road · 18-10-2020 07:13PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The numbers they test and find 'positive' to their test is not indicative of anything except how many they have tested.

It is the numbers requiring hospitalisation that matters.

On that score, I am under the impression that those with mild to medium illness from Covid are being hospitalised.
If that level of illness was present from 'flu' or other such cause, hospitalisation would not be considered.

I would like to see the lifting of restrictions, with dire warnings to those in all vulnerable groups, to self isolate and do all things possible to remain uninfected.

Let everyone else go about their business as normal, but demand they observe distancing and mask wearing.

Ruining the country for the sake of the few is not something I expect from our government.

and that is exactly why they are not doing such.
they are restricting and where necessary shutting down the low contributing, non-essential parts of the economy so as to protect the majority of it and keep things operating on a basic level, while allowing everyone including the vulnerable to get out and about when they need to.
simply telling the vulnerable to do whatever while allowing the rest of us to live our lives does not work, as it does not deal with the reality that the virus needs to be suppressed, and ultimately does not protect the vulnerable in any way but actually puts them at greater risk because they will rely on others who are not vulnerable to either care for them, or at least do basic deliveries for them, which means they are ultimately at great risk dispite shielding.
the only way to protect the vulnerable and protect everything else, is the approach we are taking, which balances all of the issues and tries to minimise the damage, which we were never going to completely escape regardless, it was always about preventing as much as is possible and having to indure as little as possible.

faceman · 18-10-2020 07:17PM

MelbourneMan wrote: »

If I could scotch once and for all, for those still propounding the notion: you cannot protect the vulnerable and let the rest of society carry on with minimal restrictions. It is simply unworkable, and cannot be done even if it were deemed and acceptable strategy to pursue. They elderly, those in care home, nursing homes, hospitals, residential homes of other types, and those with various health vulnerabilities cannot be insulated from the rest of the population. To a great extent, they are the group most reliant on support and care from the rest of the population. It a half baked idea, that a modicum of consideration will reveal to be nonsense. Please spare yourselves and others the trouble of such an impossible delusion.

What studies are you basing your hypothesis on?

My non medical education would lean me towards agreeing with you, but Id like to see studies on this. Studies where it has been attempted and what the results were. M

While you are a confident and assertive poster, who makes interesting points, I've yet to see you post any resources to back up your claims in the forum. I asked you in a separate thread about one such matter but you didnt reply.

Of course you're under no obligation to, and for all we know you could be Tony Holohan himself. But its an observation.

FintanMcluskey · 18-10-2020 07:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

and that is exactly why they are not doing such.
they are restricting and where necessary shutting down the low contributing, non-essential parts of the economy so as to protect the majority of it and keep things operating on a basic level, while allowing everyone including the vulnerable to get out and about when they need to.
simply telling the vulnerable to do whatever while allowing the rest of us to live our lives does not work, as it does not deal with the reality that the virus needs to be suppressed, and ultimately does not protect the vulnerable in any way but actually puts them at greater risk because they will rely on others who are not vulnerable to either care for them, or at least do basic deliveries for them, which means they are ultimately at great risk dispite shielding.
the only way to protect the vulnerable and protect everything else, is the approach we are taking, which balances all of the issues and tries to minimise the damage, which we were never going to completely escape regardless, it was always about preventing as much as is possible and having to indure as little as possible.

Is this it?

Level 5 for the rest of time?

No end to social suppression because vulnerable people are vulnerable?

end of the road · 18-10-2020 07:19PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Which reality is that then?

Ireland's had a Defacto travel ban, closure of "wet" bars, slowest to move out of lockdown measures in Europe... All for one basic reason... Ireland has one of the worst run health services in Europe, and now we're all facing yet another Lockdown to try patch up all the holes in the money bucket that is the HSE...

no, we had travel guidelines that suggested people should only travel when absolutely essential, we closed wet pubs because alcohol and large numbers and covid apparently don't go well, + wet pubs aren't essential. we have opened all pubs now and instead put in capacity restrictions and restricted numbers to out door which is actually a better method as it allows the pubs to open if they want but will make many consider not going hence still limiting spread from pubs so it's a win win there actually.
yeah we were a little bit slower then others to move things but we were a bit later into lock down also.

18-10-2020 07:19PM

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

I doubt they will- the people implementing all this stuff are definitely not gym goers- they generally go from the overweight (Holohan) to could-be Dracula extras like Glynn or the likes of Ryan or Harris.

Bizarre stuff, for a start Holohan isn’t even remotely overweight, very normal weight on the thin side if anything. God help us people of normal weights with you.

Also gyms are most definitely not essential and are a definite risk for spread.

end of the road · 18-10-2020 07:22PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Is this it?

Level 5 for the rest of time?

No end to social suppression because vulnerable people are vulnerable?

i don't believe i ever mentioned level 5, however if and where such is appropriate then yes it should be implemented, and when it is no longer appropriate removed to an appropriate level.
tailoring the restrictions to the reality is the best possible approach that could be taken.

Tenzor07 · 18-10-2020 07:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, we had travel guidelines that suggested people should only travel when absolutely essential, we closed wet pubs because alcohol and large numbers and covid apparently don't go well, + wet pubs aren't essential. we have opened all pubs now and instead put in capacity restrictions and restricted numbers to out door which is actually a better method as it allows the pubs to open if they want but will make many consider not going hence still limiting spread from pubs so it's a win win there actually.
yeah we were a little bit slower then others to move things but we were a bit later into lock down also.

Yeap, and the entire civil/public service and a majority of private businesses did not permit staff to take foreign holidays and if they did it was with an additional 2 week isolation period upon their return.
Wet pubs never opened in Dublin since March, and limited pubs operating as restaurants opened for a couple of months only, now closed or outdoor service only.
So no win win for anyone. Pubs are essential for people who work there.
Most office workers haven't seen their colleagues in 7 or 8 months.

Lundstram · 18-10-2020 07:29PM

MadYaker wrote: »

That's all a bit dramatic. Society is actually still functioning reasonably well all things considered. The economy isn't on the verge of ruin. Did you see the budget? Unemployment is up which is obviously bad but we aren't facing a recession as bad as 2008 and public finances are stable well into next year. Our gov can still borrow for free at the moment.

This is quite shocking to read. You haven't got a clue how bad the state of our finances are.

We are deep sh1t. Yes, we are borrowing for free but the capital has to be paid back. With around 20% unemployment and rising this is going to cause a lot of hardship down the line. Youth unemployment is around 35% and rising.

Paschal put a nice sunshine and lollipops glean on our recent budget, he basically kicked the can down the road so people will still buy into these stupid restrictions but give this craziness another 6 months to a year then the you'll change your tune.

Utterly delusional stuff from you.

Johnboy1951 · 18-10-2020 07:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

and that is exactly why they are not doing such.
they are restricting and where necessary shutting down the low contributing, non-essential parts of the economy so as to protect the majority of it and keep things operating on a basic level, while allowing everyone including the vulnerable to get out and about when they need to.
simply telling the vulnerable to do whatever while allowing the rest of us to live our lives does not work, as it does not deal with the reality that the virus needs to be suppressed, and ultimately does not protect the vulnerable in any way but actually puts them at greater risk because they will rely on others who are not vulnerable to either care for them, or at least do basic deliveries for them, which means they are ultimately at great risk dispite shielding.

You have some examples to back up your views on this?

I find it difficult to determine what you mean by "does not work" (I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve), and also by "the virus needs to be suppressed". Has something convinced you it needs suppression?

The only reason for limiting the spread of the virus is because our health system is dire.
But the 'pandemic' has passed so even our bad health system is as capable as ever of handling the Winter surge in requirements (very badly as we have experienced in previous years).

If those €billions were spent on medical facilities then we would be in much better shape to handle what is to come.

the only way to protect the vulnerable and protect everything else, is the approach we are taking, which balances all of the issues and tries to minimise the damage, which we were never going to completely escape regardless, it was always about preventing as much as is possible and having to indure as little as possible.

No its not.
It maximises societal and economic damage, while doing nothing much to protect anyone.

If everyone, but the vulnerable, were going about their business, observing distancing, washing of hands and masks, the vulnerable, and those caring for them, would be exceptionally aware of the dangers, and would do their utmost to prevent the spread of the virus to the vulnerable.

The economy would trive, allowing for the 'spend' to be concentrated where it is most needed - to help protect the vulnerable and to bolster our failing health system.

FintanMcluskey · 18-10-2020 07:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe i ever mentioned level 5, however if and where such is appropriate then yes it should be implemented, and when it is no longer appropriate removed to an appropriate level.
tailoring the restrictions to the reality is the best possible approach that could be taken.

What is that level?

Is that level an appropriate number of sick people in hospitals?

Or perhaps an acceptable number of deaths from only Covid?

What is that number in your view? You surely have one to be so enamoured with restrictions.

How many deaths from Covid are acceptable?

18-10-2020 07:44PM

Jorge Limited Maze wrote: »

Bizarre stuff, for a start Holohan isn’t even remotely overweight, very normal weight on the thin side if anything. God help us people of normal weights with you.

Also gyms are most definitely not essential and are a definite risk for spread.

I don't think Tony Holohan is overweight, but I certainly don't think he is on the thin side

Maybe you are on the "plus" side of things so the likes of Lord Tony looks positively thin to you

snowcat · 18-10-2020 07:51PM

AlphaDelta1 wrote: »

NPHET have been proven correct. L5 was needed some weeks ago to break the chain of transmission. Looks like we've wasted weeks on trusting politicians over health experts.

I think we should go to level 7.5. Shut the essential services as well. Shut everything for 3 weeks. We can all do this. Go the Chinese route. Bolt doors shut with or without consent. Food packages delivered by the army. Stand down the Gardai and get masked Army on the streets. Shoot any protesters dissenters. Close the airports/ports and army on the northern border. It will be all over in 3 weeks. It is a simple solution. We will be back to normal by Christmas. God Bless. (We will be back to square one in January though)

MadYaker · 18-10-2020 07:51PM

Lundstram wrote: »

This is quite shocking to read. You haven't got a clue how bad the state of our finances are.

We are deep sh1t. Yes, we are borrowing for free but the capital has to be paid back. With around 20% unemployment and rising this is going to cause a lot of hardship down the line. Youth unemployment is around 35% and rising.

Paschal put a nice sunshine and lollipops glean on our recent budget, he basically kicked the can down the road so people will still buy into these stupid restrictions but give this craziness another 6 months to a year then the you'll change your tune.

Utterly delusional stuff from you.

You got anything to back this up or is it just your own personal opinion? Are you an economist?

This thread is full of clueless people expressing opinions on things they know nothing about, be it vaccines or viruses. They make predictions that turn out to be completely wrong and is anything learned? Nope.

"Sunshine and lollipops glean on our budget" give me a fcuking break.

18-10-2020 07:52PM

The restrictions are not working so let’s introduce more restrictive restrictions like we had before that also didn’t work and hope that this time they do work.

That’s the best our government and NPHET can come up with.

For anyone thinking a vaccine will help, the ones that look close to approval don’t actually prevent you from getting Covid, they just make it less severe.

Whether that’s any use to our 75+ with severe underlying issues remains to be seen.

Rrrrrr2 · 18-10-2020 07:54PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think Tony Holohan is overweight, but I certainly don't think he is on the thin side Maybe you are on the "plus" side of things so the likes of Lord Tony looks positively thin to you

Well it’s obvious this poster isn’t a gym goer either seen as they’re apparently “big Covid risk areas“- obvious they haven’t the first clue what goes on in one pre or during Covid- which is fair enough but please refrain from then lecturing the rest of us that actually do go on something you clearly haven’t the first clue about

end of the road · 18-10-2020 07:56PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yeap, and the entire civil/public service and a majority of private businesses did not permit staff to take foreign holidays and if they did it was with an additional 2 week isolation period upon their return.
Wet pubs never opened in Dublin since March, and limited pubs operating as restaurants opened for a couple of months only, now closed or outdoor service only.
So no win win for anyone. Pubs are essential for people who work there.
Most office workers haven't seen their colleagues in 7 or 8 months.

pubs are not essential over all, which is the reality and the more important consideration.
yes, they are essential to an extent for those who work there, however so is every other job, and the reality is that in a pandemic situation it is just not possible to protect every single job, hence our approach concentrating on prioritising the high contributing sectors.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You have some examples to back up your views on this?

I find it difficult to determine what you mean by "does not work" (I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve), and also by "the virus needs to be suppressed". Has something convinced you it needs suppression?

The only reason for limiting the spread of the virus is because our health system is dire.
But the 'pandemic' has passed so even our bad health system is as capable as ever of handling the Winter surge in requirements (very badly as we have experienced in previous years).

If those €billions were spent on medical facilities then we would be in much better shape to handle what is to come.

No its not.
It maximises societal and economic damage, while doing nothing much to protect anyone.

If everyone, but the vulnerable, were going about their business, observing distancing, washing of hands and masks, the vulnerable, and those caring for them, would be exceptionally aware of the dangers, and would do their utmost to prevent the spread of the virus to the vulnerable.

The economy would trive, allowing for the 'spend' to be concentrated where it is most needed - to help protect the vulnerable and to bolster our failing health system.

has something convinced me that the virus needs suppressing? is that a serious question? really?
how about the high possibility that by not doing so we could have ended up with a ridiculous amount of cases requiring a ridiculous amount of isolation meaning the economy does actually crash because lots of workers can't actually work? yes currently unemployment has increased but at least anyone who can work is doing so and that is the majority.
if we threw open the doors, then that increases the risks of a high number potentially isolating at the same time which in turn will seriously effect more work places and will do actual real economic damage which what we have currently would likely be a pussy cat in comparison to.
not to mention our hospitals actually being over run.
yeah, i think there is plenty there to suggest to me that absolutely a strategy of trying to suppress the virus is a better one then simply letting it run rampent, and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise so far, funnily enough.
the pandemic hasn't passed, rather our approach has left us in a position where admissions are thankflly low and deaths even lower.
the approach absolutely is about minimising damage, economically at least and in turn even greater long term societal damage, both of which we would not escape, hence minimising it as much as we can was the only option available to us.
if everyone but the vulnerable were going about their business, then even with such measures, the transmission rate would be ridiculously high in the community, that no matter what the vulnerable and those looking after them did the risks would be ridiculous, that is just simply logic and everything seems to back this, you can't protect the vulnerable without lowering community transmission, that is just reality.
the economy wouldn't thrive, because with a high community transmission rate there would not be enough activity for it to do so, dispite there being more out and about then would be under restrictions.
protect the vulnerable while the rest of us do whatever we like is just unworkable, it doesn't matter what way one tries to spin it, absolutely everything that can be seems to be against it.

Rrrrrr2 · 18-10-2020 07:57PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The restrictions are not working so let’s introduce more restrictive restrictions like we had before that also didn’t work and hope that this time they do work.

That’s the best our government and NPHET can come up with.

For anyone thinking a vaccine will help, the ones that look close to approval don’t actually prevent you from getting Covid, they just make it less severe.

Whether that’s any use to our 75+ with severe underlying issues remains to be seen.

Restrictions and lockdowns have become this kind of bizarre fetish- you and I know know they won’t work. We’ve proven already they don’t work. Nphet and haven’t the first clue what they are doing which has been obvious really since March

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

Comments

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