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

FrogmanBegins wrote: »

I'm sure someone will dream up a horde of foreign tourists wandering around the country to get into a tizzy over.

Rumours of these tourists partying with a GAA team who just won a league match

FrogmanBegins wrote: »

I'm sure someone will dream up a horde of foreign tourists wandering around the country to get into a tizzy over.

Or fruit pickers!

walus wrote: »

Are you sure that you got your facts correct? Does Ireland really have 30% of population vulnerable i.e with underlying conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory chronic diseases etc.). Or you simply assume that everybody over 60 years of age is vulnerable?

I personally think that if we took a closer look that group of people it would be much smaller. Definitely less than 3-5%.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But 30% vulnerable isn’t correct.

50k cases, spread across the population.

30% is 16k, -2k deaths would be 14k vulnerable who tested positive while vulnerable. Did 14k require hospitalisation? Or does vulnerable not necessarily mean it requires hospital treatment?

Also the 50k positive rests are about 10% of the WHOs projected figures so that blows the argument further out of the water.

Of course, and this makes me smile the most having these conversations, the WHO have lost all credibility with those most enamoured with lockdowns, because they say they should only be used to buy time and build hospital capacity, not as a plan to live with Covid.

Paul Reid HSE director general has stated its around 30% of the population. That is in line with other EU countries. People over 60, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity are all very common. I can think of several people in my extended family who have some of these conditions.

Your maths makes no sense. The virus didn't spread evenly through the population. Vulnerable people have been trying to protect themselves (my parents for example) but there is only so much they can do if we have uncontrolled spread.

Saw a few comments from people on other threads demanding we deploy the army on the streets! :pac:

So we deploy the army on the streets and here was me thinking this was a modern western democracy. Is this Ireland or Belarus? - Are we trying to copy the desperate tricks from President Lukashenko of Belarus now?

People are utterly fanatical.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.



More unnecessary isolations!



Not my place or intention to convince you of anything.



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.



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.



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.



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.

the isolations would be necessary to control and minimise the spread of the virus because we would have woken up and realised that the hypothetical strategy we chose was a bad one.
every reason for absence from work given there will be employers who do, you know, not want their staff getting this even if it doesn't have an effect on them, because the more staff that get it, the less work gets done because even if a couple of staff members are out, that means less to do the work.
transmission rates aren't meaningless as if they are high in the community, regardless of the effects to the majority, it equals a ridiculously high risk to the vulnerable dispite them shielding, which ultimately makes the whole thing unworkable, and we would be implementing this hypothetical strategy on a hope that we possibly might maybe do something, but likely wouldn't achieve what we were looking to achieve in reality.
the negative impacts of actual isolation would be way way worse for that small percentage of the population then the effects of very minimal restrictions would be on most in reality, because as things stand people can and could go out to do some activities. yes there will be some effects, but they will be a lot less over all in all likely hood.
locking up the vulnerable while allowing the rest of us to do whatever we like is not a workable strategy, it doesn't deal with realities and the potential issues are much greater then what we could ever have. that is why we have not gone with that strategy, the risks over all are to high for possibly maybe might perhapses and we would have a percentage of very experienced workers out of the work force which we need to avoid if possible.
what we have is a fairer and more workable approach, some pain for us all rather then huge huge pain on a small amount for possibly maybe might be's, and it also does somewhat suppress the virus and allow us to live our lives in a basic manner.

end of the road wrote: »

yes economies rely on certainty, but certainty comes in many forms and generally the government will give what certainty they can given the circumstances, for which 100% certainty can't be guaranteed unfortunately.

Your right, 100% certainty can’t be given and a level of volatility needs to be factored in to measuring the stability of any economy. And it’s the job of government to provide as much certainty as possible, and IMO rolling lockdowns will only do the opposite.

And all of those sitting pretty financially at the moment can sleep easy at night as there will be an eviction ban in place for an extended period of time.

Very important not to make people homeless during this crisis.

But have a think through of that...

No rent reduction or forgiveness, to be clear - so that back rent is owed and accrued throughout.

Does anyone in reality think we’re still not kicking the can down the road for those financially f*cked for the gob-smackingly naive ideal of no one dying ever?

So what time tomorrow are we going to find out what level we might be going into

charlie14 wrote: »

One of the prerequisites to being approved for a licence is efficacy.
In other words it will not receive a licence unless it does what it claims to.

Exactly Charlie. Nobody said otherwise.

The protocol states it neither has to provide immunity or prevent severe symptoms.

In other words who are you arguing with?

Idbatterim wrote: »

With a little RTE “Stay Home” message in the corner of the screen

end of the road wrote: »

the isolations would be necessary to control and minimise the spread of the virus because we would have woken up and realised that the hypothetical strategy we chose was a bad one.

There we have it again!
Your 'high possibility' of "a ridiculous amount of cases requiring a ridiculous amount of isolation"

It seems everything you wrote is based on this possibility.

every reason for absence from work given there will be employers who do, you know, not want their staff getting this even if it doesn't have an effect on them, because the more staff that get it, the less work gets done because even if a couple of staff members are out, that means less to do the work.

It is much better to shut businesses so no work gets done?

transmission rates aren't meaningless as if they are high in the community, regardless of the effects to the majority, it equals a ridiculously high risk to the vulnerable dispite them shielding, which ultimately makes the whole thing unworkable, and we would be implementing this hypothetical strategy on a hope that we possibly might maybe do something, but likely wouldn't achieve what we were looking to achieve in reality.

Transmission rates can be huge with little effect due to the small minority of the non-vulnerable that would require hospitalisation.

the negative impacts of actual isolation would be way way worse for that small percentage of the population then the effects of very minimal restrictions would be on most in reality, because as things stand people can and could go out to do some activities. yes there will be some effects, but they will be a lot less over all in all likely hood.
locking up the vulnerable while allowing the rest of us to do whatever we like is not a workable strategy, it doesn't deal with realities and the potential issues are much greater then what we could ever have. that is why we have not gone with that strategy, the risks over all are to high for possibly maybe might perhapses and we would have a percentage of very experienced workers out of the work force which we need to avoid if possible.

Locking up the vulnerable? Can you not address what I actually post instead of injecting your own wild imaginings?

For those in the vulnerable category, they would have the choice how they behave.
They would control their own lives and behaviours and not be controlled unless, as is the case now, they are not capable of making their own decisions.

what we have is a fairer and more workable approach, some pain for us all rather then huge huge pain on a small amount for possibly maybe might be's, and it also does somewhat suppress the virus and allow us to live our lives in a basic manner.

The amount of pain inflicted on the vulnerable is not materially changed, but the amount of pain inflicted on the majority is hugely different, in the two approaches.
Some might even say there would be less pain inflicted on the vulnerable because they would have control over their own lives.
At the same time the economy of the country is not seriously impacted, whereas the economy is a near basket case under the present scheme/s.

It all comes down to one possibility (which to date has failed dramatically) versus another which has not been fully tested in a lot of locations.

I would choose the latter and you the former.

charlie14 wrote: »

Just pointing out Fintan they are not going to be licenced if they are placebos.
Something some here appear to be attempting to say they will be.
If anybody expected fullblown immunity from the first tranche of vaccines then that was in there own heads

I do not know where you are getting this seemingly inside information from on these vaccine. From what I have seen the expectations are they will reduce severe symptoms to the level of flu or even a cold.

It will not be long now Fintan until we know what the first tranche can do. Maybe an idea to stop speculating and wait and see.
Regardless of what they can do, will it not be an improvement as we have nothing at the minute that is even putting a dent in this virus. No credible opinions on how to do so either.

Will you link towards the bit in bold?

I’m not being disingenuous, I haven’t seen that stated on print.