Covid 19 Part XXXIII-231,484 ROI(4,610 deaths)116,197 NI (2,107 deaths)(23/03)Read OP

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you are assuming only two options: Lv. 5 restrictions or letting the virus run naked through society.

You can weave together a middle-ground, where cases fall into an acceptable range that does not "over-run" the health system, whilst also allowing a greater degree of freedom in society.

Nobody is suggesting that Lv. 5 would never be re-imposed, as it most likely would have - as it has in some parts of Europe - but at least those same European countries have considered Lv. 3 or Lv. 2 as viable options when cases are low. That hasn't happened here.

It's about compromise, a word that happens to be impermeable to NPHET.

You make it sound like it's easy to know what that acceptable range is. Like it's a piece of cake to weave through this vague and undefined "middle ground".

We don't know what an acceptable range is that doesn't have the potential to start to grow exponentially and put the health system under pressure. And by that point you already have to take action again as a result of that.

We know that cases can go from the 200s to 10000 inside a month if given enough fuel. The margin of error is tiny and the potential for things to quickly spiral is huge.

And we're currently at a base of around two and half/three times where we were when we loosened restrictions at Christmas, with a now more transmissible variant dominant. Plot that middle ground of acceptable cases that won't overwhelm the system and will allow things to stay open, in the current context.

Last Summer things were gradually loosened, but in the context of way lower numbers than what we have now, a less infectious variant of the disease and more people being outdoors where the risk of transmission is far lower.

I don't know why you keep insisting that level 2-3 has never been tried here. It has. From May of last year restrictions were gradually reduced around the country as case numbers were low.

Fair enough, some counties were placed back into lockdown for a period at times and some counties went into different levels at different periods to others but from June to October of last year most people in the country could do normal things like go for a meal, go on a holiday, go the cinema, go shopping, meet people. We had that period of being at level 2 and 3, some parts of the country for shorter or longer than others, - I find it strange how so many simply don't seem to remember it happening.

We're currently waiting to see how the return of schools is going to affect things right now. Unfortunately, it's all baby steps right now.

Hopefully in the medium term increased vaccination rates will leave us in a better place so that we won't have to worry as acutely about case numbers, as the ratio of hospitalisations to cases will drop dramatically, but we're not there yet and we still have hundreds of cases each day.

Hundreds can become thousands very, very quickly - we have seen it happen before - we can't be blasé about it and blithely assume it can't happen again.

This known acceptable middle ground, at this moment, between cases, opening things up in a sustainable way and protecting the health system from screeching to a halt again doesn't exist right now. You don't know what that middle ground is. No-one does. That's the problem.

Cases have to be lower than what they are now and/or more people have to be vaccinated than what they are now - otherwise we're just deluding ourselves about the sustainability of what we loosen or open up. I'm optimistic that we'll get there in due time, but I don't see the point of rushing into an opening up that isn't sustainable - A lá Christmas - only to make the situation more complicated, fractious and drawn out in the end.