Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

emeldc · 20-01-2021 9:40am

GazzaL wrote: »

I know some SNAs are disgusted by the actions of the unions. They would prefer to be in school because they love their jobs and remote teaching just doesn't cut it. It's frightening the impact it has on the kids. It's a disgrace, but the lives of people with special needs aren't important in the eyes of NPHET.

It's a disgrace that you're commenting on stuff that you know nothing about. NPHET said it was safe for the special needs kids to go back to school and actually recommended it.

Windmill100000 · 20-01-2021 10:29am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2500+ deaths in Europe’s youngest population.
Longest and harshest lockdown in Europe.
460000 collecting PUP.

No fair plays from me. It’s been an utter failure and continues to be.

It's an odd contrast. On one hand you lament the thousands of deaths, but on the other you condemn lockdowns, which have been the very thing that have suppressed numbers when we have been inundated with cases awaiting a vaccine.

Numbers are going down so it's a fair play from me and all those I'm sure who are working on the frontline.

Boggles · 20-01-2021 10:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

There are likely lots of nurses, doctors, drivers, cleaners, factory workers, supermarket staff etc etc who have children of their own and would have no problem organising zoom calls to do their jobs, if it were possible. For kids with the likes of autism especially, zoom calls are likely worse than useless. The problem is often engaging these kids on a one to one basis. Shifting them to a situation where instead of personal contact, you are now engaging them on a screen may well be counterproductive

Equating special education with those other professions is just going to further píss off the staff more. They were only afforded the title of "essential" a few days ago.

It's the route Norma is full steam going down this morning. She needs to go, I imagine she is just being used as a shield of incompetence at this stage.

On the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't matter, but I watched her yesterday in an massive empty convention center telling Special Ed Staff they are safe, and get back in.

The optics were horrendous.

There is definitely a solution to be found, but divide and conquer is not it.

20-01-2021 11:04am

Windmill100000 wrote: »

It's an odd contrast. On one hand you lament the thousands of deaths, but on the other you condemn lockdowns, which have been the very thing that have suppressed numbers when we have been inundated with cases awaiting a vaccine.

Numbers are going down so it's a fair play from me and all those I'm sure who are working on the frontline.

Do you have any source on lockdowns suppressing numbers? Every remotely scientific source I've seen has been unable to conclude that lockdowns are effective at suppressing the spread of Covid-19.

It's not that the papers say that lockdowns may be worse on balance, which seems to be where the discussion often is—but that it is not clear that lockdowns do anything at all to contain the spread. Apart from, perhaps, ensuring that the virus prefers a mutation that allows it to spread more easily, like the UK and SA variants.

Windmill100000 · 20-01-2021 11:18am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you have any source on lockdowns suppressing numbers? Every remotely scientific source I've seen has been unable to conclude that lockdowns are effective at suppressing the spread of Covid-19.

It's not that the papers say that lockdowns may be worse on balance, which seems to be where the discussion often is—but that it is not clear that lockdowns do anything at all to contain the spread. Apart from, perhaps, ensuring that the virus prefers a mutation that allows it to spread more easily, like the UK and SA variants.

What we know is how covid spreads, through contact. Eliminating that contact and keeping people apart is one obvious way to help suppress infection.

It was patently clear that reducing of restrictions over Christmas, where people, understandably, met with families and friends,impacted on the incidence of cases.

As long as infections rise we are going to continue to remain in lockdown. We may not like it, but that is what is going to happen.

I don't like it as much as the next person, but hearing that my local hospital was at capacity for ICU and critical care beds brought home to me how serious things have become this year.

What hope has a person in a car accident, for example, rushed by ambulance and in need of critical care to a hospital that is unable to facilitate them appropriately to the degree needed because they are at capacity?

20-01-2021 11:44am

Windmill100000 wrote: »

It's an odd contrast. On one hand you lament the thousands of deaths, but on the other you condemn lockdowns, which have been the very thing that have suppressed numbers when we have been inundated with cases awaiting a vaccine.

Numbers are going down so it's a fair play from me and all those I'm sure who are working on the frontline.

2500+ deaths shows that we failed to protect our most vulnerable. I doubt there are many other countries that have allowed this to spread so rampantly in nursing homes and hospitals.

460000 on PUP shows how many lives have been destroyed by lockdowns and restrictions. About 185 people have to be out of work per death.

We had to get the balance right. More actions and restrictions in places where the vulnerable are. Less restrictions on the fit and healthy so they can continue to drive the country forward.

Instead we’ve managed to burn the whole place to the ground. Half a million fit and healthy people out of work is a national embarrassment

20-01-2021 11:44am

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a new poster and I haven't made enough posts yet to be able to include links in them, so I can't provide them, but there's basically a growing body of evidence that suggests that lockdowns don't suppress the spread of covid any more than general social distancing and hygiene measures do. I take your point about the opening at Christmas time, but there are compounding factors—namely, the mean incubation period for covid is 4-5 days, but our peak for positive tests came 16 days after full lockdown was reinstated, and after the UK variant reached the island and started spreading. So it's unclear whether Christmas visiting was the reason for the increased spread or whether it was simply the new, more transmissible variant just doing its thing.

I do take your point about the ICU capacity, too. It's a grave concern. But so is the fallout from lockdowns, not just in terms of economic effect but also in terms of long-term health effects, the number of people not currently getting routine checkups and screenings, mental health and so on.

NPHET are concerned with the ongoing health emergency—as they should be; they are a public health emergency team after all. But I feel that the government as a whole should be taking a more holistic approach that includes all available information about the positives and negatives of any given strategy, both in the immediate and the long term, and implementing based on that. It's not clear to me that this is the case. Everything seems very reactionary and slap-dash, and it's concerning.

ArthurDayne · 20-01-2021 11:53am

Windmill100000 wrote: »

What we know is how covid spreads, through contact. Eliminating that contact and keeping people apart is one obvious way to help suppress infection.

It was patently clear that reducing of restrictions over Christmas, where people, understandably, met with families and friends,impacted on the incidence of cases.

As long as infections rise we are going to continue to remain in lockdown. We may not like it, but that is what is going to happen.

I don't like it as much as the next person, but hearing that my local hospital was at capacity for ICU and critical care beds brought home to me how serious things have become this year.

What hope has a person in a car accident, for example, rushed by ambulance and in need of critical care to a hospital that is unable to facilitate them appropriately to the degree needed because they are at capacity?

It’s interesting that you say it’s patently clear that the rise in cases had much to do with people meeting up at Christmas — which is of course a very sensible interpretation. Christmas is one of the most significant times of the year for people to travel to homesteads and gather indoors with family and friends, more so than any other time of year.

You can understand therefore peoples’ frustrations that we are in a lockdown where shops and schools are closed, distance limits are in place, and limited forms of social stimulation in restaurants / bars is impossible. We are, once again, at the point where it is social anathema to get in the car and head out to Wicklow for nothing more than a walk. We are led to believe that these measures are an unfortunate necessity when, as you yourself say, the “patently clear” issue was people gathering for Christmas — a festive period which has now passed. And yet, we are fed the narrative that 5km limits are now the ingenious solution...and the moral finger-pointing at those evil enough to walk their dog in the hills can begin again (see RTEs ‘more traffic on roads than first lockdown’ infograph).

Sometimes it’s hard to divorce oneself from the belief that these current rules are in place for the authorities to be seen to do something.

Windmill100000 · 20-01-2021 12:02pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2500+ deaths shows that we failed to protect our most vulnerable. I doubt there are many other countries that have allowed this to spread so rampantly in nursing homes and hospitals.

460000 on PUP shows how many lives have been destroyed by lockdowns and restrictions. About 185 people have to be out of work per death.

We had to get the balance right. More actions and restrictions in places where the vulnerable are. Less restrictions on the fit and healthy so they can continue to drive the country forward.

Instead we’ve managed to burn the whole place to the ground. Half a million fit and healthy people out of work is a national embarrassment

You may 'doubt' other countries are failing to protect their vulnerable citizens, but if you were to read the news you would see that actually the deaths among the elderly in community settings is a worldwide problem, not a phenomenon unique to Ireland.

https://apnews.com/article/europe-madrid-coronavirus-pandemic-barcelona-nursing-homes-c0d659f2af4cd22750201c0166a5889c

Many countries are facing the same difficulties keeping the vulnerable safe.

What you are missing is it is not possible to let the fit crack on and keep a handle on covid and protect the elderly. The people that work with the vulnerable (so for example those working in nursing homes, hospitals, public health nurses and carers that go house to house) are also in the community.

You seem to think you can have it both ways, but I dont see how. Increased cases in the community will have a direct impact on the people you claim are not being protected enough.

Penfailed · 20-01-2021 12:13pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2500+ deaths shows that we failed to protect our most vulnerable. I doubt there are many other countries that have allowed this to spread so rampantly in nursing homes and hospitals.

Maybe you should actually try and find out the situation in other countries before guessing?

VonLuck · 20-01-2021 12:27pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It’s interesting that you say it’s patently clear that the rise in cases had much to do with people meeting up at Christmas — which is of course a very sensible interpretation. Christmas is one of the most significant times of the year for people to travel to homesteads and gather indoors with family and friends, more so than any other time of year.

You can understand therefore peoples’ frustrations that we are in a lockdown where shops and schools are closed, distance limits are in place, and limited forms of social stimulation in restaurants / bars is impossible. We are, once again, at the point where it is social anathema to get in the car and head out to Wicklow for nothing more than a walk. We are led to believe that these measures are an unfortunate necessity when, as you yourself say, the “patently clear” issue was people gathering for Christmas — a festive period which has now passed. And yet, we are fed the narrative that 5km limits are now the ingenious solution...and the moral finger-pointing at those evil enough to walk their dog in the hills can begin again (see RTEs ‘more traffic on roads than first lockdown’ infograph).

Sometimes it’s hard to divorce oneself from the belief that these current rules are in place for the authorities to be seen to do something.

How is it that people still don't understand the 5km restriction? It's to limit the movement of people. The more people out and about, the more likely it is for the virus to spread. There can't be any debate on that - fewer people leaving homes = fewer interactions.

Sure, the person walking their dog on their own is doing no harm, but you can't just give exemptions or else it'd be entirely unenforceable. Even the perception that people are being fined for just going to the Wicklow Mountains on their own will result in everyone having second thoughts about meeting their friend who lives over 5km away.

ArthurDayne · 20-01-2021 12:54pm

VonLuck wrote: »

How is it that people still don't understand the 5km restriction? It's to limit the movement of people. The more people out and about, the more likely it is for the virus to spread. There can't be any debate on that - fewer people leaving homes = fewer interactions.

Sure, the person walking their dog on their own is doing no harm, but you can't just give exemptions or else it'd be entirely unenforceable. Even the perception that people are being fined for just going to the Wicklow Mountains on their own will result in everyone having second thoughts about meeting their friend who lives over 5km away.

But I do understand that. Yes, limiting the movement of people means limiting interactions — that’s all very easy to comprehend. But this is not the key point, the key point is whether it is actually a proportionate measure or whether it’s just a clumsy overstep which only ultimately achieves what the dying of the Christmas season would have achieved naturally anyway — and indeed whether such severe restrictions actually sap the will of the people to comply in the long term with even sensible measures.

You talk of “exemptions” as if the people who would seek to break the 5km limits for the innocent purposes of just quietly having a day out to themselves are some tiny minority — and going easier on them would open the floodgates for some massively larger horde of headcases to run riot and disregard all sensible personal measures. It’s the exact opposite — the exceptions are the headcases and, even at that, it wasn’t these people heading off outside 5km zones that precipitated the rise in cases — it was people gathering during a Christmas season which is now gone.

So yes, I understand the rationale for the limits — it’s perfectly understandable. I just think it’s a daft, clumsy and disproportionate measure used by authorities who fear the wrath of the media and electorate if they aren’t seen to do something significant.

Tenzor07 · 20-01-2021 1:03pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So yes, I understand the rationale for the limits — it’s perfectly understandable. I just think it’s a daft, clumsy and disproportionate measure used by authorities who fear the wrath of the media and electorate if they aren’t seen to do something significant.

Well there you have it, 2k, 5k, 20k... all just window dressing and have little or no benefit to reducing case numbers.... and the Garda checkpoints is a waste of resources having multiple cars and Gardai standing around in the rain all day..

“The public health concern is how people behave around others – not how far they are from their home. In fact, the research shows that this limit may in fact be forcing people in urban areas into more crowded situations.

Kunta Kinte · 20-01-2021 1:27pm

GazzaL wrote: »

I know some SNAs are disgusted by the actions of the unions. They would prefer to be in school because they love their jobs and remote teaching just doesn't cut it. It's frightening the impact it has on the kids. It's a disgrace, but the lives of people with special needs aren't important in the eyes of NPHET.

The decision not to reopen the special needs schools this week had nothing to do with NPHET. Don`t let facts get in the way of a good rant though. It would appear that many on this thread live in their own alternative reality.

20-01-2021 1:32pm

what galls me is a few weeks ago Stephen donnelly was singing from the rafters about us having a special vaccine task force, whose only objective was the rollout, implementation and administration of the Vaccine...They had one job to do and here he is in prime time saying things like, "It shouldn't have happened...I am meeting with hospital management tomorrow, this is disappointing.."

Are they all sacked yet?? it's about as likely as them being paid the average industrial wage...****ing shambles...

Kunta Kinte · 20-01-2021 1:37pm

emeldc wrote: »

It's a disgrace that you're commenting on stuff that you know nothing about. NPHET said it was safe for the special needs kids to go back to school and actually recommended it.

Looking through that particular poster`s posting history it is clear that it isn`t the first time he has done just that.

average_runner · 20-01-2021 1:38pm

rusty cole wrote: »

what galls me is a few weeks ago Stephen donnelly was singing from the rafters about us having a special vaccine task force, whose only objective was the rollout, implementation and administration of the Vaccine...They had one job to do and here he is in prime time saying things like, "It shouldn't have happened...I am meeting with hospital management tomorrow, this is disappointing.."

Are they all sacked yet?? it's about as likely as them being paid the average industrial wage...****ing shambles...

Can't sack them, union won't allow it

20-01-2021 2:20pm

I Know it's just infuriating the depth of ineptitude on display for all to see.

20-01-2021 2:34pm

Don't Chute! wrote: »

No doubt the teachers will be putting themselves forward to make up the time lost during the summer because as we know it’s all about the childereden with them. Seriously was your post meant as a joke?

It's primarily about preserving their entitlements in my opinion, any chance of time stamping a verifiable workload at home week on week? Not a hope. Those who are not pulling their weight going on PUP? Forget it. Unions whining incessantly? Day and night. Similar protections afforded to other sectors of society? In a parallel universe. Teachers have little to no sympathy from me considering their secure payload, mine goes out to special needs children and leaving cert students placed in an awkward bind.

GazzaL · 20-01-2021 2:39pm

I know a good few lads who decided to keep doing a few odd jobs despite the restrictions to make their wages rather than go on the PUP. They're doing more good for this country than NPHET.

end of the road · 20-01-2021 2:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

2500+ deaths in Europe’s youngest population.

would have been way way more if not for the public health measures.

Deleted User wrote: »

Longest and harshest lockdown in Europe.

this has already been debunked multiple times.

Deleted User wrote: »

460000 collecting PUP.

most of who will return to work.

Deleted User wrote: »

No fair plays from me. It’s been an utter failure and continues to be.

low case numbers until the past while is no failure.

end of the road · 20-01-2021 2:46pm

Don't Chute! wrote: »

No doubt the teachers will be putting themselves forward to make up the time lost during the summer because as we know it’s all about the childereden with them. Seriously was your post meant as a joke?

no, it's a serious and correct post.
summer time is holiday time for teachers and students, so i would hope they would expect those holidays as normal.
i know when i was in school, the idea of having to make up lost time for having time off which i would have enjoyed would have been a horror.

Mr. Karate · 20-01-2021 2:47pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I was speaking to someone high up in the UK government who said UK is anticipating this lockdown lasting until September.

I see no reason why Ireland will be any different.

No way will people fall for that garbage again. They'll need to start re opening in March/April. Once the days get longer and the weather starts getting warmer people are going to want to start going out and about and enjoying it again.

Trying to keep people locked in over the Summer again is asking for a revolt because they're not going to fall for that scam again. Especially when come Oct they'll be looking for another full lockdown "To save Christmas"

20-01-2021 2:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's primarily about preserving their entitlements in my opinion, any chance of time stamping a verifiable workload at home week on week? Not a hope. Those who are not pulling their weight going on PUP? Forget it. Unions whining incessantly? Day and night. Similar protections afforded to other sectors of society? In a parallel universe. Teachers have little to no sympathy from me considering their secure payload, mine goes out to special needs children and leaving cert students placed in an awkward bind.

Can I ask, on the Teacher thing ok. If it transpired in the morning that indeed as many believe, Schools are a driver of this virus, would you then agree with teachers not wanting to go in?? much as they're loathed, they have children too, many have underlying conditions, many have all the mental and physical maladies shared in the general population.

I neither have not/have not an axe to grind on any teacher Lazy or lovley but in a room full of kids who can spread it, I agree with them. leinster house was evacuated because they though one minister was positive FFS, what does that tell you, this is being used as a wedge to push a long running issue betwixed the two. For me, this is a low point.

Perhaps I'm missing something Bertie, I think they have a right not to go in if they don't feel safe. If some crazy idealist group said they were going to blow up a school this week, would they be made to go in then?? No the schools would be shut...what's the difference, anyone of them could get the virus and die, it;s a pandemic. NO?? isnt that why we are all out of work? cannot visit family members in hospital? care homes? last rights and funerals???

maybe I'm missing something I just think this is a no brainer, they cannot open to numbers get low again, very low.

FintanMcluskey · 20-01-2021 2:51pm

end of the road wrote: »

would have been way way more if not for the public health measures.

this has already been debunked multiple times.

most of who will return to work.

low case numbers until the past while is no failure.

Your argument is based on opinion.

The points you are refuting are factual

Kunta Kinte · 20-01-2021 2:57pm

Mr. Karate wrote: »

No way will people fall for that garbage again. They'll need to start re opening in March/April. Once the days get longer and the weather starts getting warmer people are going to want to start going out and about and enjoying it again.

Trying to keep people locked in over the Summer again is asking for a revolt because they're going to fall for that scam again. Especially when come Oct they'll be looking for another full lockdown "To save Christmas"

How is it a "scam" and "garbage"?

From Dictionary.com
A scam is a deceptive scheme or trick used to cheat someone out of something, especially money.

Who and how was anyone being cheated?
Any restrictions measures that were implemented were clearly necessary.

SnuggyBear · 20-01-2021 2:59pm

You could close this thread for 2 months cos not much is going to change

CalamariFritti · 20-01-2021 3:00pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I was speaking to someone high up in the UK government who said UK is anticipating this lockdown lasting until September.

I see no reason why Ireland will be any different.

I was talking to U.N.C.L.E. myself only yesterday and there I heard its all over by next week.

hamburgham · 20-01-2021 3:01pm

average_runner wrote: »

Can't sack them, union won't allow it

I would sack them. With everything going on, parents and kids at home anyway, this is the time to do it. They cannot be allowed to continue calling the shots.

hamburgham · 20-01-2021 3:14pm

rusty cole wrote: »

Can I ask, on the Teacher thing ok. If it transpired in the morning that indeed as many believe, Schools are a driver of this virus, would you then agree with teachers not wanting to go in?? much as they're loathed, they have children too, many have underlying conditions, many have all the mental and physical maladies shared in the general population.

I neither have not/have not an axe to grind on any teacher Lazy or lovley but in a room full of kids who can spread it, I agree with them. leinster house was evacuated because they though one minister was positive FFS, what does that tell you, this is being used as a wedge to push a long running issue betwixed the two. For me, this is a low point.

Perhaps I'm missing something Bertie, I think they have a right not to go in if they don't feel safe. If some crazy idealist group said they were going to blow up a school this week, would they be made to go in then?? No the schools would be shut...what's the difference, anyone of them could get the virus and die, it;s a pandemic. NO?? isnt that why we are all out of work? cannot visit family members in hospital? care homes? last rights and funerals???

maybe I'm missing something I just think this is a no brainer, they cannot open to numbers get low again, very low.

The decision to open schools has to be OBJECTIVE and not based on subjective 'feelings'.

Feeling safe is subjective. Everyone has their own threshold. I don't feel safe walking around certain areas at night, someone else could feel relaxed. And to be frank, people who are extremely risk averse are often fairly neurotic. Are we to let these people dictate policy?

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings