Covid 19 Part XXX-113,332 ROI(2,282 deaths) 81,251 NI (1,384 deaths) (05/01) Read OP

Ger Roe wrote: »

I didn't say they should be closed. But we can not keep defending keeping them open based on a plan introduced when the community transmission circumstances were very different.
If they are to stay open, what additional precautions are going to be taken? We can't operate to the same levels and procedures that served us only while the general community transmission rates were low. Things have changed, review and plan again.
The government can't keep defending their policies based on plans that may no longer be effective, because circumstances have changed dramatically. Saying that a failed plan to keep levels low always envisaged keeping schools open, is not good enough.
The virus has changed, circumstances have changed, what is their new plan?

Schools are completely different environments to what they used to be, the level of precautions is probably as high as it can be..
Unless the full rationale for closing them down can be provided, i.e. scientific facts/evidence which show schools are the driving force behind the spread then there's no reason to keep them shut.... You can Google this but the school's contribution to the spread was 3.5% before the holidays... very low!

You can't keep them closed based on Fear, many parents are keeping their kids home based on that.

Probes wrote: »

Think it's pretty damn clear now that this is highly seasonal.

After 1 year it's clear? Really?

Tenzor07 wrote: »

"Incubation period of 2 - 21 days" where did you get that?... According to the HSE it's 5 - 6 days on average, though could be as much as 14 days: https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/frequentlyaskedquestions/

I think it's 90% produce the symptoms within 14 days, but it makes no difference. With such a wide range of incubation periods it essentially becomes impossible to pinpoint where people pick it up.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Can you provide some research that retail does contribute to spread?

Is it an indoor setting that people mix in? Then yes it contributes to the spread and no I'm not bothering to look it up, it's a well known fact at this stage. If you're looking for a research paper that specifically outlines retail then you're not only being pedantic but you're choosing to ignore the fact that that research would be extremely difficult to do for the reasons pointed out before.

bb1234567 wrote: »

I think seasonal is the wrong word. It clearly spreads at similar pace in populations with low susceptibility as we see with many AMerican states and European countries seeing peaks within the same period, almost to the exact day, despite differencesin restrictions.

But Brazil has now overtaken it's winter peak , as has South Africa nad Colombia who are in high summer season so it's quite evidently not seasonal, the low cases in summer in Europe coincided with extremely reduced rates of ifnections after continent widelockdowns ended in late Spring.

Looks pretty seasonal to me, obviously where more are susceptible it will have an easier time to spread but look at the US, restrictions have only tightened there and its raging in a way it wasn't during the summer. Same too with Sweden. Or any number of countries really.

Russman wrote: »

But were essential shops really “packed” in April ? I remember doing click and collect for the weekly groceries and there was always a queue to get in and numbers were being really strictly policed. Compliance with distancing and one way systems was much much higher. I guess it shows they can operate safely but people need to stop taking the p1ss and obey the guidelines.

Plus pretty much everything else was shut, construction, schools, gyms etc.

Good point. Google mobility data suggests essential shopping was way down compared to normal levels.
By eye it looks like it was on average about 20% bellow usual levels.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I may be wrong but it’s fairly standard practice that if you make a claim there is an expectation that you maybe asked to back up your claim. Your unwillingness to do so is strange when you seem so strident in what you post.

The claim I made was that it's next to impossible to provide the evidence for the reasons I gave in the very first post. Hence why logic must play a part. Sorry you can't understand that.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Schools are completely different environments to what they used to be, the level of precautions is probably as high as it can be..
Unless the full rationale for closing them down can be provided, i.e. scientific facts/evidence which show schools are the driving force behind the spread then there's no reason to keep them shut.... You can Google this but the school's contribution to the spread was 3.5% before the holidays... very low!

You can't keep them closed based on Fear, many parents are keeping their kids home based on that.

I accept they were low risk. That is why I continued working in them. But, things have now changed and the plan and precautions to be taken have not.

They don't have to be driving factors any more, plenty of other services are being closed because they merely might contribute to a rapidly worsening situation.

I don't accept that we can continue on, just by doing the same thing we did previously when the situation was not as bad. The deal done with the entire community was that everyone worked within the wider community to keep levels low, so that schools could continue. That deal is well broken now.

If this was a war situation and your attacking enemy changed tactics to gain considerable advantage, you would not simply stick to your previous defense arrangements, because it was the plan you were going to follow to the end.

Eod100 wrote: »

Some test centres reporting up to 50% positivity: https://twitter.com/paulreiddublin/status/1344987447411830785?s=19

This is not good obviously, but also very much to be expected when you stop testing close contacts and only test people with symptoms.

Again, be wary when Paul Reid throws out numbers. He often does it for attention, without proper context or explanation.

Percentages and numbers for the next few days are meaningless until we have more data.

Probes wrote: »

Think it's pretty damn clear now that this is highly seasonal.

It's not around long enough to be clear on that. Is it seasonally worse in the Northern Hemisphere's winter yet the Southern's Summer? It's a strange kind of seasonality.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So it’s your opinion then, thanks for the clarification.

Clearly not only my opinion, but the opinion of the qualified people making the recommendations.

Probes wrote: »

Yes, people are using qualified opinions and logic to apply to the restrictions because the research isn't and likely never will be available - as stated before. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes but it seems those making up these opinions mostly exist on Social media and create enough of a stir by that which is driving up the levels of restrictions such as the 5k limit.... Just wish it could be best on the best science not someone's opinionated logic...

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes but it seems those making up these opinions mostly exist on Social media and create enough of a stir by that which is driving up the levels of restrictions such as the 5k limit.... Just wish it could be best on the best science not someone's opinionated logic...

Social media aren't making the restrictions mate...

seamus wrote: »

This is not good obviously, but also very much to be expected when you stop testing close contacts and only test people with symptoms.

Again, be wary when Paul Reid throws out numbers. He often does it for attention, without proper context or explanation.

Percentages and numbers for the next few days are meaningless until we have more data.

Exactly what you want as the head of the biggest budget holder in the State.

Probes wrote: »

Social media aren't making the restrictions mate...

The consensus of peoples opinions driven on the fear generated by the media does, Pal..
The T.D's and political parties rely on these peoples votes and won't be seen to stand in the way of going along with every restriction brought in and then some, mate.