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

clayfarm1234 wrote: »

"Varadkar said that while businesses will likely have to wait until at least March to reopen their doors, schools and construction sites could open again before this time" (https://www.her.ie/news/when-will-lockdown-end-in-ireland-516505)

Any other thoughts on when the construction will reopen again !?

They said when cases were below a thousand, with regularity, so be within the next 2 weeks.

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, "smartest".

Fair play to them, I have no idea why senior politicians and King are apologising.

Well, I know this will come as a shock to you...but this virus is not going away anytime soon.

Have you seen their figures for 2019? They had a much lower death rate, they were "primed" for a year of excess death anyway. They will have a much lower death rate this year most likely.

What they haven't done is imposed severe restrictions on the entire population that is already taking a huge toll on people, and all the related issues around that, they didn't react in the hysterical manner we did!

Russman wrote: »

There is none, but apparently if politicians take a pay cut its, I dunno, something, something, something, elites, six figure salaries, bla, bla.......
Seemingly if public health experts earned less they'd open everything and let COVID rip or something. Who knows.

Literally it was Leo Varadkar who was slinging that shyte so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it that the government deserve their salary and NPHET don't? Is half your paragraph sarcastic and the other dead serious because that's hard to get across in text.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I’m struggling to understand why it isn’t open — and it’s this lack of future planning that makes people concerned about just how far ahead the government is actually looking. It seems the very least we could be doing, if we are to be deprived of all else, is to be taking advantage of the quieter roads and streets to drive forward construction.

I have a 4 year old son. If he wants something, it's a prime opportunity to get him to do something he'd otherwise be reluctant to do with the vague possibility of him getting what he wants. Maybe he'll get the chocolate bar if he comes for a walk. Maybe he'll get some time on the tablet if he eats his vegetables. I have absolute control over what he gets so it's easier to get him to be compliant. The government probably sees us as the same.

That or they're genuinely completely at sea and don't have a clue what they're doing.

Qwertyminger wrote: »

Literally it was Leo Varadkar who was slinging that shyte so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it that the government deserve their salary and NPHET don't? Is half your paragraph sarcastic and the other dead serious because that's hard to get across in text.

Apologies. Borne out of frustration reading some of the posts (yes I know I don't have to read them but its like car crash tv in fairness). Simply agreeing with the prev poster saying someone is always looking for politicians to have their pay cut and questioning what politicians salaries had to do with COVID restrictions.
No issue at all with what NPHET earn. Politicians, meh, thats always going to be a debate, but in the context of COVID, I don't care what they earn.

Graham wrote: »

No, my answer is I understand the economic reasons for keeping economies moving and the risks if we fail.

Make no mistake, this "money is free", money-to-all policy is not what will make the economy move. It is given away so that the crowd does not storm the government buildings. When people have excess money but have nowhere to spend it, or they exhibit no willingness to spend it, the economy is going to recess.

For the economy to move the businesses of all sorts need be open so that the money gets recirculated and taxed multiple times. That is what drives the economy, not money printing and giving it "free" right, left and center.

Graham wrote: »

less people moving around = less virus moving around

It's literally that simple.

I think it’s a little unfair for you to pretend that I don’t know that — it’s the underpinning sense and proportionality of the measure I am questioning. I mean, handcuffing our entire young population to fixed attachments in households would also mean less people moving around. It wouldn’t really make much sense though would it?

We seem to have reached a point where it doesn’t appear to matter whether a measure is proportionate or sensible for medium to long term interests anymore. If you can say “it stops people moving around” then that appears to be a sufficient grounds of sense and rationale, regardless of any other factor. Can we all agree, at the very least, that one of the prominent national crises over the last number of years in this country has been housing? With that in mind, doesn’t it seem somewhat perturbing that in the midst of what is likely to be one of the greatest economic shocks in our lifetimes, that this major national issue is going unaddressed?

The Irish Times is reporting, today I believe, a forecast that the halt to construction could reduce housing supply by 8,000. This is a big problem with potentially multi-generational effects. Opening construction would possibly have some adverse effect on case numbers, but we have to think proportionately here. Would opening construction genuinely precipitate a sustained healthcare calamity? Are the short term adverse effects a price worth paying to help resolve an issue that may have serious consequences for the people of this country for many, many years to come?

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus, do you ever get sick of doom mongering?

Potentially fantastic news to be released on the Oxford vaccine and how it limits spread.




So it was nothing to with the highly transmissible dangerous virus doing the rounds? :pac:

Jesus lad if I was championing the "smartest" country and how they have dealt with pandemic it certainly wouldn't be Sweden.

Particularly when they themselves are saying they go it wrong.

There is nothing doom mongering about it...it's perfectly normal for a population of people to build up immunity over time to this, like we do with every other virus that we get a couple for times a year. There is a strong possibility that we have more immunity to this than we are aware of as nasty and all as it can be to some.

Countries that have a low death rate one year, will often record a higher death rate the next, that much isn't too hard to understand.

The demographic that is most affected by this are the same demographic who are vulnerable to a multitude of ailments.

This is about sustainable policy over a period of years, the Swedish policy is already looking like the best in terms of outcomes...they made mistakes with care homes, like everyone did, that is what the issue is.

IF you spend anytime at all I suggest you listen to Tegnell, a very interesting individual. You might learn something you won't learn listening to Irish media.

Silentcorner wrote: »

This is about sustainable policy over a period of years, the Swedish policy is already looking like the best in terms of outcomes...they made mistakes with care homes, like everyone did, that is what the issue is.

Nearly 12,000 dead, and 5000 put through their ICU's?

They had the single largest one quarter collapse of their economy in 40 years.

I don't know what barometer you are using to measure "outcomes" but it needs readjusting.

Deleted User wrote: »

Talk about the king of the false equivalence.

The why and the circumstantial evidence in the case of Lance Armstrong was clear.

Now why do NPHET want to inflate the numbers, and why do the government want to suppress the economy? These are the questions that anyone raising these bizarre conspiracies refuse to answer

I believe we are suffering from a complex cocktail of political and institutional and media dysfunction.

We haven't a clue what we are doing.

The plan shifts all the time, the goalposts move all the time, the population have been exposed to hysteria all the time...we are not allowing our people to hear alternate opinions on policy in any meaningful way....we seem to have abandoned any belief that there is a seasonaility factor in all of this, which would mean, that we could comfortably relax restrictions without putting any pressure on our health system.

You said yesterday that we here in Ireland have witnessed huge excess deaths in 2020 but you couldn't provide any Irish data that reflects that...in fact all the data that is known is showing something much different...this far into a pandemic that has seen us all locked down, you'd think that information would be public so we all could understand the reasoning behind the policies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Swedish death rates were in a steady decline for decades apart from 2017/18 when increased influenza and harsh winter in 17/18 caused a known excess in Europe. 2019 resumed the previous downward trend and 2020 was on target for the same until covid

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN?end=2018&locations=SE&start=1997

Thank you, for proving my point.

raven41 wrote: »

The one statistic that gets least coverage is the median age (why not just say average) of those that died yesterday, as reported by Rte was 85.

Median age of death available here:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/br/b-cdc/covid-19deathsandcasesseries21/

Has ranged from 79-85 each week, during recent months.



Life expectancy is:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/birthsdeathsandmarriages/irishlifetables/

79.6 for men, 83.4 for women

raven41 wrote: »

Statistics are meaningless unless there are certain parameters. For example when comparing ourselves to other countries, how do we know how many covid tests were carried out.
If there were a certain number of tests conducted per 10000 of population, only then would a comparison between countries make any sense.

All this data is published.

raven41 wrote: »

Out of all those positive test, how many people are asymptomatic or even oblivious and just get on with a normal life?

Well that's the problem, one of those people either in a health care setting or in the community could unwittingly infect the likes of your elderly parents, might even be you.