When will it all end?

the kelt · 15-03-2021 11:19AM

pjohnson wrote: »

Not as worry as some still thinking covid is just a flu and thinking that the analysis they did justifies and supercedes any and all experts.

But you will always get idiots, thats the point.

For example you're point about the drunk driving where someone does it and thinks there ok. We have laws in place where theyre punished for taking that risk and analysing the risk incorrectly.

They dont just ban everyone in the country from driving because of it!!

Id have more respect for our leaders etc if they ahd the balls to call out and prosecute, punish people who give 2 fingers to the rest of the country rather than having a go at some family for being at a beach outside their 5k.

There will be plenty of condascedning talk about breaching 5k or visiting a friends house etc yet will any of our leader come out and condemn the huge traveller funerals and weddings???

No they wont touch that but will scold Mary for visiting a friends house for a cup of tea!

gozunda · 15-03-2021 11:20AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This reminds me of the mentality of some of our elder generations. The type who thought inter county travel was reckless on December 17th but perfectly safe on December 18 because the man on the TV said so.

Some of us are capable of thinking and analysing risk for ourselves.

There's a big difference between 'thinking' for ourselves and sticking the head in the sand

And tbf don't think its 'elder generations' giving the proverbial finger and saying 'let it rip' or wtte

the kelt · 15-03-2021 11:22AM

Scotty # wrote: »

You and I might be smart enough but can you imagine the mess if you let everyone decide for themselves?? It'd be like removing all speed limited from the roads and letting people decide their own limits.

No youre missing the point.

Speed limits are there for a reason, you break the speed limit you suffer the consequences.

You dont just stop everyone from driving because people are breaking the spped limit.

15-03-2021 11:23AM

Scotty # wrote: »

You and I might be smart enough but can you imagine the mess if you let everyone decide for themselves?? It'd be like removing all speed limited from the roads and letting people decide their own limits.

Why do people who are "pro-restriction" (for want of a better word - I know you don't want restrictions) seem to think that there is level five lockdown, open-up-let-'er-rip, and nothing in-between?

gozunda · 15-03-2021 11:33AM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Well it's not exactly rocket science at this stage to read through primary data sources and realise that the vast majority of our population is at little or no risk from this virus or to look at history and wonder why we have never reacted like this before or to wonder even when we have vaccines which massively mitigate this already low risk is anyone even considering any restrictions post vaccine roleout to the section of our population actually at any significant risk from this virus.

Firstly - it's a virus that whilst having the greatest impact on the elderly and anyone with an underlying condition of any age - infects many people and has a high level of transmissibility.

Secondly - the biggest issue is that as a disease Covid-19 makes enough people sick (when unmanaged) to potentially cripple our health resources. With on average 50% of those being admitted to hospital with Covid-19 being under 65 years if age.

And yes we know our health care system has serious issues.

And if some can't understand that we require a critical mass of people vaccinated - then we're really on a road to nowhere...

So yeah definitely too many self qualified rocket scientists out there imho

Scotty # · 15-03-2021 11:33AM

Oh I think there is plenty in between. That's what we're aiming for. I was looking forward as much as anyone to heading down the country for a few days come May.

But I just don't think we're at the right place for lowering restrictions just yet.

the kelt · 15-03-2021 11:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people who are "pro-restriction" (for want of a better word - I know you don't want restrictions) seem to think that there is level five lockdown, open-up-let-'er-rip, and nothing in-between?

This is the thing, its like there cant be any in between.

I recognise the need for restrictions but some seem to think that if everyone followed the rules to the letter like robots then there would no more virus!!

Like the virus only reacts to people breaking the restrictions and ignores everyone else in a country in the middle of a global pandemic with no control on airports, no proper track and trace system etc etc

El_Duderino 09 · 15-03-2021 11:38AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This reminds me of the mentality of some of our elder generations. The type who thought inter county travel was reckless on December 17th but perfectly safe on December 18 because the man on the TV said so.

Some of us are capable of thinking and analysing risk for ourselves.

People might be capable of calculating their own risk, but that doesn't mean they can calculate the accumulative risk. So everyone might judge themselves at low risk (which they are on average) and if everyone then goes ahead and does whatever they want, within reason based on their low risk, they all remain at low individual risk. But they wont be calculating the risks around whether their collective behaviour will generate enough cases and acute cases to overrun the health service.

Individuals might (or might not) calculate risk at an individual level but they don't calculate risk at a national level. It's unreasonable to expect them to do so. That's why we collect nationwide stats. Everyone calculated their risk at Christmas and behaved accordingly. That resulted in a lockdown ever since. All those people were at low individual risk, but accumulatively we needed a national lockdown. Did people calculate that risk accurately? I don't think they did.

15-03-2021 11:39AM

gozunda wrote: »

if some can't understand that we require a critical mass of people vaccinated

What, specifically, is that critical mass, and what is your source for that figure?

ArthurDayne · 15-03-2021 11:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people who are "pro-restriction" (for want of a better word - I know you don't want restrictions) seem to think that there is level five lockdown, open-up-let-'er-rip, and nothing in-between?

This has been a problem, driven largely by moral absolutism. When people take a high ground, on the premise that they are the ones who care about others while the anti-lockdown crowd are selfish cretins — its hard to advocate even moderate lifting of restrictions because it means at least some more people will die and Mr / Mrs Morality finds themselves in the selfish cretin bucket too...where one becomes an ‘apologist’ for the concept that even saving lives is a question of proportionality versus freedom. So the only way to maintain one’s ethical purity is to simply find the lowest risk approach and constantly advocate it, then blame others for being uncaring when an elevated risk appetite leads to at least some elevation in death numbers.

Then will come the day where Covid deaths are at a number they deem to be tolerable, and suddenly the ‘caring’ people won’t care about the deaths anymore.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-03-2021 11:50AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And some think that one otherwise-isolating household meeting another otherwise-isolating household poses a risk, and a sip of champagne on New Years' eve should keep a driver away from a car for 12 hours.

If we ran society according to the risk tolerance of those people we'd never do anything.

The only possible vector of transmission on my restriction-breaking trips, FYI, would be a garda checkpoint. So down with that sort of thing. Too risky.

That's a neat scenario. And if the only people who chose to meet up were isolating households, then there wouldn't be a problem or any need for restrictions. Likewise if people only ever chose to drink a sip of champagne before driving, there wouldn't be any need for drink driving enforcement.

But doesn't your scenario highlight how far your example is form reality?

RGS · 15-03-2021 11:51AM

Scotty # wrote: »

Oh I think there is plenty in between. That's what we're aiming for. I was looking forward as much as anyone to heading down the country for a few days come May.

But I just don't think we're at the right place for lowering restrictions just yet.

You don't think we are there yet.

Can I ask what is your criteria for easing restrictions?

Apoapsis Rex · 15-03-2021 11:55AM

I see the legal case regarding unfair closure of certain construction will be held on April 13th.

Is this not a perfect opportunity for the government to keep construction closed "pending" the outcome of that case?

Or another fair alternative would be to close the sector of construction that is currently allowed so that there is no discrimination

ELM327 · 15-03-2021 11:56AM

Sharpyshoot wrote: »

Nphet says no.

Just like the DUP, they will never not say no. Like the DUP we need to learn to ignore them.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 12:07PM

Scotty # wrote: »

You and I might be smart enough but can you imagine the mess if you let everyone decide for themselves?? It'd be like removing all speed limited from the roads and letting people decide their own limits.

Slightly different - while many of us feel that at times it is perfectly safe to say drive at 140 or 150kmh on a quiet motorway being asked to just drive at 120kmh isn't exactly a huge incumbence on my life - if I am driving to Cork and it takes a few minutes longer due to a speed limit it isn't exactly a huge problem or a massive invasion of my freedoms.....it is a balance.

Being prevented from working, getting into severe financial distress, having your business destroyed, dealing with mental issues in your family or kids, being prevented from travel and freedom of movement........slightly different.....despite it being a virus that is little or no risk to most of the population.

Apples and oranges really.

gozunda · 15-03-2021 12:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What, specifically, is that critical mass, and what is your source for that figure?

Critical mass refers to the percentage of people who need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. One of the aims with working towards herd immunity is to keep vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated (e.g. due to health conditions like allergic reactions to the vaccine) safe and protected from the disease.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

Currently scientists estimate that somewhere between 70% and 85% of people need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/03/963373971/a-rocky-road-on-the-way-to-herd-immunity-for-covid-19?t=1612983608348&t=1615808016669

Scotty # · 15-03-2021 12:36PM

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Being prevented from working, getting into severe financial distress, having your business destroyed, dealing with mental issues in your family or kids, being prevented from travel and freedom of movement......

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

...despite it being a virus that is little or no risk to most of the population.

The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

bucketybuck · 15-03-2021 12:47PM

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

Its sickening to keep hearing this bull****.

No, for the vast majority of us life has not carried on, for the vast majority it has been severely curtailed and affected in a multitude of different ways.

gozunda · 15-03-2021 12:49PM

HansKroenke wrote: »

It's absolutely not. Healthcare workers and slaughterhouse outbreaks were abetted by the authorities in spreading covid while everyone else was knuckling down and observing the restrictions. Considering how many deaths came from nursing homes, the biggest contributor to the deaths figure is the spread of covid in care/nursing homes and hospitals which would have been from healthcare workers spreading the virus. This isn't to blame the people but to make an observation.

You sure about that? Eveyone? - even those screaming that they know better, don't care about restrictions or saying they'll do what they like?

Working in a high risk environment such as health care or living in a communal setting of vulnerable people pre-vaccination is absolutely not in the same category as those deciding they know better or even using that excuse for not sticking with the restrictions. And yes that also acknowledges that mistakes have most certainly been made.

And again that's not 'blame' simply an observation as to what has happened to date.

mikekerry · 15-03-2021 12:51PM

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

From looking at the many tik tok videos of hospital staff dancing in empty wards it doesn't look like our health system is anyway close to collapsing.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-03-2021 12:53PM

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

The virus itself is of low risk, but it's of huge risk to all of us if it were to collapse our health service. Do you not believe the world's health experts when they warn this? Do you not believe they know better than you and I? Or do you think they're lying?

This is the problem with people assessing the risks for themselves. Some people will assess risks more accurately than others. Some people will ignore risks they don't like to think about, as we see with people ignoring the overall risks rather than personal risks.

You also have things like the Dunning Kruger effect where, roughly speaking, the less people know about an issue the more confidently they will make assertions about them. In other works, the less someone knows about the risks, the more confidently they will calculate those risks for themselves.

M_Murphy57 · 15-03-2021 12:53PM

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

Hundreds of thousands of people losing their livelihood overnight is not "a tiny proportion". No warning, no chance to build up savings, mortgages and other debts still there. Credit rating destroyed for years to come. The mental health toll taken from going from being a contributing member of society to unemployed in an instant.

Meanwhile the government refuse to give plans or hope or a roadmap out of this hell.

But good to know you are in the "us" for whom "life has carried on"

aido79 · 15-03-2021 12:55PM

What is the average age of people being admitted to hospital? This is the main thing that needs to be considered before a decision can be made on opening up.

Kermit.de.frog · 15-03-2021 12:55PM

mikekerry wrote: »

From looking at the many tik tok videos of hospital staff dancing in empty wards it doesn't look like our health system is anyway close to collapsing.

You're not the only one who agrees with that. Personally I found the videos crass, counter productive and offensive to those patients in hospital and ICU's. Not to mention undermining of the overall message.

The HSE should have instructed all staff not to engage in it particularly on hospital grounds or in medical gear.

That stuff started in the UK and it should have been stamped out immediately.

M_Murphy57 · 15-03-2021 12:57PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You're not the only one who agrees with that. Personally I found the videos crass, counter productive and offensive to those patients in hospital and ICU's.

The HSE should have instructed all staff not to engage in it particularly on hospital grounds or in medical gear.

That stuff started in the UK and it should have been stamped out immediately.

Some hospitals did explicitly instruct their staff not to do it.

15-03-2021 12:57PM

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of people losing their livelihood overnight is not "a tiny proportion". No warning, no chance to build up savings, mortgages and other debts still there. Credit rating destroyed for years to come. The mental health toll taken from going from being a contributing member of society to unemployed in an instant.

Meanwhile the government refuse to give plans or hope or a roadmap out of this hell.

But good to know you are in the "us" for whom "life has carried on"

700000 unemployed... “Tiny proportion “

Kermit.de.frog · 15-03-2021 01:06PM

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Some hospitals did explicitly instruct their staff not to do it.

I think the HSE should have applied it to everyone under penalty.

Some of those dance routines were elaborate to the point serious hours must have been put in just to get it all in sync.

These nurses and doctors are employed by us in the middle of a public health emergency.

Totally mad and undermining of the public health message.

SnuggyBear · 15-03-2021 01:09PM

Scotty # wrote: »

But you are talking about a tiny proportion of the population there. For the vast majority of us life has carried on.

How can anyone say that with a straight face. Unbelievable

newuser99999 · 15-03-2021 01:16PM

SnuggyBear wrote: »

How can anyone say that with a straight face. Unbelievable

There’s plenty of weirdos who would feel no different if this lockdown went on forever.

ujjjjjjjjj · 15-03-2021 01:21PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't get this either. Sticking with the speed limit comparison, our current restrictions are akin to having a 30kmph speed limit on all motorways. We know this would reduce accidents massively, but it would be an overreaction that would have an unnecessarily severe impact on the average person's life. Why not go to a 50 or 80 kmph limit? Most people accept that conditions are too dangerous to have the normal 120kmph limit at the moment, but think the 30kmph limit is too severe.

Good way to describe it.......

When will it all end?

Comments