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

Penfailed wrote: »

The median age is 83 - https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcases/

Not according to R.Glynn

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40057658.html%3ftype=amp

88 was mentioned at the one of the sittings in the Dail

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Not according to R.Glynn

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40057658.html%3ftype=amp

88 was mentioned at the one of the sittings in the Dail

...and, right on cue. He doesn't have the specifics and said he would need to check. I checked.

Penfailed wrote: »

The median age is 83 - https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcases/

92% of the deaths over 65 with a median age of 83 and 88% of them had underlying health conditions.

Remind me again why we are locking down??

Deleted User wrote: »

I stand corrected on that so.

That link is up until mid May, it seems to have been revised.

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

You said “pubs are open”- I’ve asked you under what circumstances they are open.

Table service outdoors to a maximum of 15 people (and I live in a level four county).

Both and neither.

Penfailed wrote: »

...and, right on cue. He doesn't have the specifics and said he would need to check. I checked.

No, you didn’t, you posted a link almost 6 months old.

Glynn has specifically said the median age is almost 90.

Now as bad as he is, I’ll still put more weight in his words, than a poster who spends months repeating “pubs are open”

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No, you didn’t, you posted a link almost 6 months old.

Glynn has specifically said the median age is almost 90.

Now as bad as he is, I’ll still put more weight in his words, than a poster who spends months repeating “pubs are open”

He specifically didn't say that.

Months? They haven't even been open for a full month yet. Do you understand how I find it really difficult to believe anything you post?

Penfailed wrote: »

He specifically didn't say that.

Months? They haven't even been open for a full month yet. Do you understand how I find it really difficult to believe anything you post?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40057658.html%3ftype=amp

“In a robust exchange with Fianna Fáil TD Jim O’Callaghan, Dr Glynn said the median age of those who died is near 90.“

You don’t make it difficult to discredit your arguments

PTH2009 wrote: »

Level 4.75

You are madly wrong there. It will be 4.33 and I’m certain of it.

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah the HSE are poaching staff from nursing homes to try and keep the hospitals going, more people are being admitted to hospital every day with covid, but sure lets just ignore all that and keep going, be grand.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/covid19-updates/covid19-daily-operations-update-2000-17-october-2020.pdf

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1018/1172325-nursing-home-staff/

I never suggested that and suggested better enforcement of level 3, just while this wave a lasts.
I was under the impression hospitals were under serious pressure with the usual busy October plus Covid patients also. It turns out this isn’t the case, it’s the usual busy October. I understand some control of virus spread is needed but the impact these restrictions will have, now far outweigh their benefit. Especially level 4+5.

end of the road wrote: »

there was always going to be an economic fall out whatever we did, so the choice was between a fallout and a potential really big one, and we chose a basic fallout.

No we had one of the worst job losses in Europe and the hardest hit domestic economy in Europe.

GDP is artificially inflated by multinationals, a phenomenon know as leprechaun economics. Produce that doesn’t benefit Ireland.

Ireland are also a contributor to other EU nations so this will not be a “basic fallout”

Most of Europe reopened last May and June for the benefit of the domestic economies while Ireland allowed citizens visit the barbers on June 29th.

FrStone wrote: »

If we can't function with 30% of our population cocooning (a figure that I am skeptical of), we certainly can't function with rolling lockdowns which lockdown a much larger percentage of our population.

Lets look after the people and open up safely, keep the gyms open, keep the pubs open and accept that we are going to have cases until a vaccine comes along. With 31 in ICU nationwide the hospitals are not overrun more than a regular October.

we can absolutely function with rolling lock downs as we have already proven, not as much as we would like to but that's the reality of a very contagious virus, not that our lock downs are even real lock downs anyway, and none of us i suspect would want a real lock down, i certainly don't.
living with the virus means restrictions, that is the only way we can live with it as it has to be suppressed in some form to allow everything to keep going.
if it is safe to keep non-essential stuff open such as pubs and jymns then they will be kept open, as we are doing all we can to try and open up, however throwing open the doors isn't going to happen until it can actually do so.

end of the road wrote: »

...
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.

So the answer is no ...... just a fear of what might be possible.

Why would your ridiculous number of isolations be necessary in the circumstances outlined? ...... Answer they wouldn't!

No reason for absence from work for the majority, so no great effect on the economy which is in stark contrast to your preferred lockdowns/restrictions.

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.

More unnecessary isolations!

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.

Not my place or intention to convince you of anything.

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.

Apparently a very large number of those who track these things disagree with you. But that too is ok. We are all entitled to our opinion.

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.

You have some links to support this view?
Transmission rates are meaningless where the vast majority are not at risk, the vulnerable having been 'isolated' and warned and being supported.

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.

With the vast majority at work of course the economy would thrive.
In addition the negative impacts of 'isolation' would be confined to a small percentage of the populous who could much more easily be assisted than the huge numbers in a lock down.

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.

I suggest you reread what I originally wrote.
There was NO suggestion of anyone doing whatever they like. Quite the contrary!

It appears you need to create imaginary scenarios to support your view.

Airports are all but dead now anyhow. They’re a red herring with regard to “Covid cases”