Howard Beale wrote: » The reasonable alternative is no lockdown. Ever hear of Sweden or South Korea? How about Belarus?
Sweden's king says 'we have failed' over Covid-19, as deaths mount "We have had a large number of deaths and that is terrible," the king said.
Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said he agreed with the king's remarks. "Of course the fact that so many have died can't be considered as anything other than a failure," Mr Lofven told reporters.
Tazz T wrote: » We have no real stats on schools. UK has. Secondary schools are the number one driver of infections. Basically all of Killorglin town is now locked down over Xmas due to the school outbreak there. Just 17 of those cases will make the school statistic even though the school is responsible for them all.
JazzyJ wrote: » No one likes the restrictions - but many see them as a necessity to prevent significant numbers of deaths. You can question the government and lockdown measures all you want, but you won't be taken seriously until you present a reasonable alternative other than "it's failed".
Howard Beale wrote: » It was a total abject failure but Prepare to be labelled a tin foil hat loon. For some reason everyone here LOVES restrictions and effectively want to be locked up forever. Have yet to see a sinlge person on this site even question the government or even lockdown measures.
JazzyJ wrote: » All indications given by the government so far have been that schools are not driving transmission. So they would need be royally wrong on that. And I'm not doubting that they could be. As you say though any impact from the schools being off will only be seen from very late December or early January, so its more likely that we will be seeing 1000 cases per day by year end.
Deleted User wrote: » The goal of the level 5 lockdown was to reduce the cases to about 50 per day so we could reopen. Unfortunately yesterday we had 300 cases and are nowhere close to 50 a day. Now of course it did help to an extent. Cases have reduced from about 1000+ to 250 - 300 ish. But we have to consider the social and economic impact on society as well. Based on what we’ve seen, if we return to level 5 in January, what evidence is there to suggest it will even work? If we do rise to 1000+ cases a day in Jan, how many months of level 5 would be needed to get back towards 0, which seems to be our goal. Would it even be sustainable? Do you think cases will remain lower with more social outlets open and more controlled environments? If months of level 5 is the only solution until everybody is vaccinated, I think we are f*cked. I predict there will be huge backlash against lockdowns next year. Thoughts?
Tazz T wrote: » The schools will be out. That'll kick in January.
JazzyJ wrote: » The following post shows the current positivity rate against the rate in the 2nd wave in October:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115639208&postcount=4044 We went from 432 cases to 1269 cases in the two weeks from 6th to the 20th. You really don't think that won't happen again with the recent trend in positivity rate and cases creeping upwards, combined with the increased mobility and contacts over Christmas? I'd say there's not a hope we'll be below 1000 come January. What do you think will prevent history repeating itself and will be different this time?
Tazz T wrote: » [HTML][/HTML] You really want this to happen, don't you? Unfortunately just parroting the same statement over and over again here won't make it true. Is this Donald Trump's boards account?
landofthetree wrote: » Ireland’s R number now stands at between 1.1 and 1.3, Health Minister Stephen Donnelly tells the Dáil. We will easily be at over 1000 cases by the 1st Jan.
Deleted User wrote: » Social, health and economic devastation compared to the good it actually does at keeping cases low. We had level 5 for 6 full weeks and are already talking about going straight back after Christmas. How long does it take to bloody work? If we need it permanently, then we better get jabbing soon!
NIMAN wrote: » Level 5 didn't work this time because it wasn't proper level 5. In many places things were going on as normal. Traffic was 70% of normal levels. Many non essential shops stayed open, or bent the rules to allow them to stay open. Schools, construction and many office workers were still out and about. It was nothing like the March level 5 at all. Night and day.
MadYaker wrote: » How do you decide whether it succeeded or failed? what criteria do you look at?
[Deleted User] wrote: » So safe to say that lockdown did indeed fail as I said in the opening post.
awec wrote: » Yes Boggles, we can all read your posts. People can bleat on about longer restrictions all they want, but the longer they go on the more compliance will fall. This is why every time restrictions are announced they are more and more lenient than before. It is why the level 5 we just had was nothing like the level 5 we had in March. It is why the government are already kite flying saying the next set of restrictions will not affect retail.
awec wrote: » Yes Boggles, we can all read your posts.
Boggles wrote: » .
awec wrote: » Longer restrictions are of no consequence if there is no compliance.
Boggles wrote: » Lower compliance will result in longer restrictions.
Boggles wrote: » Lower compliance will result in longer restrictions. The only way one could see that as a "good thing" is if they want longer restrictions. I don't know any reasonable individual who would want such a thing.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b02137c72155734a0d6608f88d445229.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
