Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsNI/status/1328737682399391746

agoodpunt wrote: »

yes but the schools are sacred untouchable know matter what

No one has said that .

agoodpunt wrote: »

yes but the schools are sacred untouchable know matter what

i think its more the government desperate to be proven right, no matter what, so we're never going to get the truth on schools. even the new task force they established over mid term stinks of cover up and fudge.

seamus wrote: »

Better numbers today

364 positive swabs from 9,830 tests. 3.7% positivity. 7-day rate is UP to 3.97% (will be 4% on the board), but that's how averages work. The rate this day last week was 2.72%, so it looks like a huge jump. It's actually not.

But the schools!!!

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsNI/status/1328737682399391746

Very sad. It's good to see people like that man helping to get the message across to others by sharing their own experience though.

Stephen Donnelly doing awful here

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Again, your points are well expressed and sincere — but I must say I can’t agree.

Well, that's fair enough. There's quite a lot you've said in reply that I don't agree with either.

(This is going to be one of those long multi-quote replies which are intensely boring to read through and ugly to look for the people not involved, so my advice to many would be to just scroll on by)

I mean, we have to read your first paragraph in the context of what you say in your last paragraph. What we are trying to achieve is not actually “the suppression of an infectious disease” outright, it’s merely the suppression of the disease to the point where we can re-open things at Christmas, right? When things re-open, the inevitable consequence is a rise in cases — therefore it’s not about suppression of the disease....it’s merely about allowing socialising in December, which will allow the disease to spread again. So it’s not about “suppressing” the virus, it’s simply about timing its spread in a way to suit peoples desire to socialise and shop at Christmas.

No. We're not aiming for outright total suppression of the disease. The government has never pursued that strategy, NPHET hasn't advocated that strategy. However, we are suppressing things to a point - that still qualifies as suppression. The primary aim is still to get the numbers down to a level where more punitive measures can be eased - the main point is still the suppression of an infectious disease. That is the main thing.

Christmas/December is a handy and easily understood carrot for people to buy into, it is, also, essentially secondary. Suppressing the disease through the Winter period until the hopeful arrival of the vaccine is the primary aim. Getting the numbers down to a level where perhaps we can live alongside it something like level three instead of level five. Lowering the numbers so people can have a slightly more "normal" Christmas period would be a often stated outcome - but it's not the main reason that this is being done. It's still all about managing the crisis over the next 4-6 months.

To say it's solely been done to suit people's desire to "socialise and shop" is an exaggeratedly reductive argument. But we also have to be realistic - many people will socialise over Christmas, many people will meet family and friends. And, yes, eventually that will lead to an uptick in cases once again in the new year - I think it's unavoidable, so all the better to give yourself the best possible starting position going into it so the potential carnage coming out of it will be somewhat manageable - becasue we will have to still live in January, Febuary,March...

What's the alternative? Are you actually arguing in favour of total suppression?

If young people are to be demonised for the most rudimentary form of socialising available to them, then it angers me to see that society in general isn’t staring itself in the mirror and recognising that it is criticising young people for doing what almost everyone intends to do in December. And worse, I don’t imagine they will be doing it outside, they will be meeting up with friends and family indoors.

I don't believe people should be outright demonised - I've said it myself that I can understand their motivations, to an extent - but I do believe they are foolish and ,yes, selfish.

I don't know if I can speak for society as a whole, but I can certainly speak for myself.

What I intend to do for December is to spend some time with my parents, who I haven't seen since late Spetember. I won't ask for anything else. I will be happy with that. I have no expectations to go out boozing with friends in large numbers, or even to meet people in any meaningful way. A shockingly basic Christmas will do me fine and I will be grateful for it - and it's the same way for everyone I know. Most reasonable people have tempered their expectations considerably this year - and everything I plan is highly dependent on the numbers, I conceivably may not visit anybody over Christmas. I don't intend to do "almost the exact same thing" and I don't think I am alone in that either.

If we are going to talk about hypocrisy, the base issue is the fact that if you believe in hard lockdowns — to the point where you believe that we delve to such levels of [in my opinion] absurdity that we clamp down on something as rudimentary as drinking pints outdoors — then I don’t see how one consistently can argue for ever leaving strict lockdown until there is a vaccine.

Okay, you are putting words in my mouth and making inferences about my position on certain issues.

I don't believe in strict lockdown - level five level - until there is a vaccine. Does anyone? Has anyone credibly advocated that position? A few headers might pop up here occasionally and franticly type it out, but, they are very much the minority. Even the zero-covid advocates don't argue for that. That's simply not what I'm arguing.

I believe in people taking on board the public health guidance and doing what they can individually to be part of the collective effort to bring us down to a sustainable level of cases and hopefully we can come back down from a level five scenario to a more humane level three, to hopefully keep the balance of a semblance of normal life ticking over without cases spiraling out of control again and we all hope like crazy that the picture will essentially change in the Spring of next year. There's a lot of hopefully there, but it the best I've got - there's a lot of things one can't know for sure.

But there is one thing I definitely know for sure - people flouting, if not the letter, but definitely the spirit of the advice is going to contribute to making this period harder and more drawn out for everyone in the end - you included.

I’m sorry to tell you Arghus, but if hypocrisy is what you want to avoid, you may well be putting yourself in a fairly inescapable moral conundrum. Because if young people socialising now is an affront to the national effort to fight the disease, I don’t see how one would then consistently argue everyone across the land socialising in December is fine. Even if numbers are down to whatever level they need to be come the end of this month, the inevitable end point is another rise in cases and a likely lockdown early in 2021. Could I not just as easily say to you - sure who actually needs Christmas?

I don't believe I'm being hypocritical at all; It may appear that way to you - if you misrepresent my position.

I don't believe "everyone across the land socialising in December is fine". What I do believe is that people should continue to behave sensibly and be prepared to make some sacrifices to their usual social activities for Christmas - and beyond. Precisely because - as you say - the otherwise inevitable end point is a likely lockdown in early 2021.

I think getting to a reasonable target of cases and staying at a medium level of restrictions - roughly around level three, maybe if we're lucky we may get down to level two at times - and people, or at least enough people, taking on board the actual sensible advice - we can find a way to muddle through until the deus-ex-machina vaccine solution arrives. That might sound grim to a lot of you - but we honestly have no better plan and only the totally deluded and/or willfully ignorant will genuinely claim otherwise.

I don't want carte blanche to go nuts in December, I want numbers to be down as low as possible so that I can have even a shockingly basic Christmas and I can be reasonably satisfied that the risk of me bringing home a virus to my 74 year old father is negliable. Most people are asking for nothing more than a reduced Christmas - retail stores open and a chance to spend it with their closest family: fairly fundamental stuff. And I want that for people too - every sacrifice I make is not just only for me, it is genuinely made - as sappy as this sounds - for other people too. And it fcking pisses me off to read people bending over backwards to defend those that I guarantee you were mainly thinking of themselves and who genuinely, seemingly, couldn't give a fck or have never even asked themselves if their behaviour contributes to exacerbating the problem.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

We're never gonna get the numbers down like the first lockdown.

Our numbers now are one of the best in Europe.

This is as good as it gets so let's accept it.

tell it to Tony..... we've long accepted this, but nphet hell bent on lockdown, be prepared for an extension on Dec 1st

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

We're never gonna get the numbers down like the first lockdown.

Our numbers now are one of the best in Europe.

This is as good as it gets so let's accept it.

You're right.

I'm not agreeing with you because I want everything opened up or any of that, it's just reality.

The majority of people's perceptions have changed, from my own personal experience. The people in the older, more at risk bracket, that I know have done a 180.

With schools open, businesses open, parents and children mixing at the school gates, school yards, classrooms, people having drinks in other households etc, it ain't going to get back to what it was in June.

And I honestly don't blame people for it. They've done all they can.
I'm not blaming 18 year olds, 21 year olds, 30 year olds etc. I've no idea how I'd react at that age.

It is what it is. I'm sure Tony Holohan will have a lovely Christmas with his family and friends though

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Which is why the restrictions have to remain in place. Those restrictions are suppressing the virus and saving lives.

Ay up, George Lee has logged in

Its plateaued there is too much activity still for it go down any further. Many of us did mention it wasn't going to happen with schools open still. Thankfully the government won't consider anything further than this level so this is about the best it gets. Meh

so people are annoyed with lockdowns and NPHET. i can understand that, but I am still not hearing any alternatives. everytime i ask, i am given an answer that basically amounts to lockdowns with some pubs open thrown in occasionally.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So they don’t care about the actual source, just the “outbreak” site.

Who said they dont care ?

froog wrote: »

so people are annoyed with lockdowns and NPHET. i can understand that, but I am still not hearing any alternatives. everytime i ask, i am given an answer that basically amounts to lockdowns with some pubs open thrown in occasionally.

Any answer you get will basically amount to ‘restrict the things that have no impact on me’.