Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Social distancing Megathread

Options
12467…68

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Balf wrote: »
    I don't agree. For some, it's only prudent to isolate.

    For the rest, unsustainable.

    Current approach only makes sense if we prioritise this over absolutely everything else.

    This is not the only challenge facing people. Its just the one that, for some reason, finds it can get to the top of the political agenda.

    So again I ask, how do you isolate within families? e.g.

    Husband 40+, healthy, no pre-existing conditions.

    Wife, 40+, but has diabetes or a respiratory conditon.

    Couple of kids, one with asthma, two without.

    So, in your scenario, husband is not at risk and should "carry on as normal", go to work etc, while non-asthmatic children go to school or creche - while wife and asthmatic child are isolated?

    Is that what you're suggesting?


  • Options
    #93
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    Prioritising this over absolutely everything else, is exactly what we are supposed to do. Even if it takes six months or longer.

    The country will recover. But splitting up the population up into two seperate camps will not work.

    There is no way to completely isolate one from the other.

    All it would take is one infection to start the whole thing off again.

    Doing what we are doing for 6 months will tank the economy beyond repair. The idea of "heard immunity", whilst maybe not yet the best approach, is exactly designed (in theory) to prevent one infection starting everything off again.

    At some stage, the needs of the majority are going to have to take precedence over the needs of the minority. This, in my opinion, will have to happen no longer then 3 months from now.


  • Options
    #94
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    So again I ask, how do you isolate within families? e.g.

    Husband 40+, healthy, no pre-existing conditions.

    Wife, 40+, but has diabetes or a respiratory conditon.

    Couple of kids, one with asthma, two without.

    So, in your scenario, husband is not at risk and should "carry on as normal", go to work etc, while non-asthmatic children go to school or creche - while wife and asthmatic child are isolated?

    Is that what you're suggesting?

    In the long run, this is what will have to happen. Your alternative is no better, with everyone isolating for an extended period of time.


  • Options
    #95
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    At some stage, the needs of the majority are going to have to take precedence over the needs of the minority. This, in my opinion, will have to happen no longer then 3 months from now.

    Wow. Dangerous talk indeed.

    That's the kind of mindset that led to leaving those over 80 to die in Italy.


  • Options
    #96
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    AulWan wrote: »
    Wow. Dangerous talk indeed.

    That's the kind of mindset that led to leaving those over 80 to die in Italy.

    Untrue.

    The nurses and doctors in Italy were overwhelmed and left with no option.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JustAThought
    Registered Users Posts: 5,323 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    the beach was so full of people and their families today that i might as well have been in a pub. And I went up yo Bray head for a walk the other afternoon and it was elbow room only for the amount of people that were out walking -I’ve never seen the like of it. I drove over to my neighbour and stood at their gate while they stood in the porch with the door open and talked to me from 50 foot away - it’s not very 21st century but far more intimate and consoling than skype. While all you now see is peoples children are hanging around in packs in the streets and congregating in hoards outside my house and in parks why should I lock myself inside and breathe only reconditioned air in isolation? Social isolation is only practical where there is fear or medical need - people are far too self centered to do it long term or put up with their own children 24/7 unless they are forced to by police, fines or others. For the masses it is not lonv term practical - particularly if you live in an upbuilt area or an appartment or have loud badly behaved children yhat you are used to discarding into the care of others - creches, grandparents, teachers, activities, volunteer lead clubs like soccer/athletics/ scouts etc.


  • Options
    #98
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    Wow. Dangerous talk indeed.

    That's the kind of mindset that led to leaving those over 80 to die in Italy.

    No, it isn't. And it's not "dangerous talk". It's a legitimte point of view. The idea of the majority of people self isolating for potentially up to a year, if not a year and half when we maybe have a vaccine, is bonkers. The onus will have to eventually shift on those people who are high risk to self-isolate themselves, otherwise there will be virtually nothing left of our economy.


  • Options
    #99
    JustAThought
    Registered Users Posts: 5,323 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    we have a social welfare bill of billions and at a recent founding/e tendering conference a housing/‘homeless industry’ budget of two BILLION. I have no problem whatsoever with much of this being scrutinised and reallocated to individuals that need it - and I don’t mean the self entitled, improted problems or thise who never worked a day in their lives to contribute. Why not fund and provide resources to those who worked their entire life and now expect some support - they would find it of it was for other categories. There is more to a country than ‘an economy’ .


  • Options
    #100
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    No, it isn't. And it's not "dangerous talk". It's a legitimte point of view. The idea of the majority of people self isolating for potentially up to a year, if not a year and half when we maybe have a vaccine, is bonkers. The onus will have to eventually shift on those people who are high risk to self-isolate themselves, otherwise there will be virtually nothing left of our economy.

    Its unworkable.

    Unless you are talking about opening leper covid19 colonies and forcibly incarcerating all those who are over 60 or who fall into an at risk groups within them, then it'll never happen.

    China didn't even do that.


  • Options
    #101
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    Its unworkable.

    Unless you are talking about opening leper covid19 colonies and forcibly incarcerating all those who are over 60 or who fall into an at risk groups within them, then it'll never happen.

    China didn't even do that.

    China hasn't been self isolating for 6 months. I'm talking long term here. I fully agree with current measures in place, but they should not last beyong June latest imo.

    And we won't need leper-esque colonies. That's a complete strawman.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    JustAThought wrote: »
    we have a social welfare bill of billions and at a recent founding/e tendering conference a housing/‘homeless industry’ budget of two BILLION. I have no problem whatsoever with much of this being scrutinised and reallocated to individuals that need it - and I don’t mean the self entitled, improted problems or thise who never worked a day in their lives to contribute. Why not fund and provide resources to those who worked their entire life and now expect some support - they would find it of it was for other categories. There is more to a country than ‘an economy’ .

    Funny how in this country the most vulnerable are those with guaranteed income living in housing massively subsidized, if they even bother paying their rent. I have said this less than a month ago. The real vulnerable are those a job loss away from serious stress and living standard reduction, renting is worst. Why are people who may never have been unemployed now hit with a e203 rate that the wasters gets ?


  • Options
    #103
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    No its not.

    I gave a very simple scenario of a family (#92) where there are those at risk and those not at risk, and the answer was basically "split them up".

    Isolate them from each other.

    How do you expect that to happen - or to be sustainable - if not by physical separation?


  • Options
    #104
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    No its not.

    I gave a very simple scenario of a family where there are those at risk and those not at risk, and the answer was basically "split them up".

    Isolate them from each other.

    How do you expect that to happen - or to be sustainable - if not physical separation?

    How does it work at present?


  • Options
    #105
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    No, it isn't. And it's not "dangerous talk". It's a legitimte point of view. The idea of the majority of people self isolating for potentially up to a year, if not a year and half when we maybe have a vaccine, is bonkers. The onus will have to eventually shift on those people who are high risk to self-isolate themselves, otherwise there will be virtually nothing left of our economy.

    Exactly.

    There is no way this can or would be accepted.

    There will be anarchy all over western europe if current measures last too long.

    I go back to the original question.

    How long is it tenable?

    And even aside from the economy.

    We live for social contact and interacting with others, that's the natural purpose of our species.

    Isolation of whole countries or social distancing is not feasible long term.

    Particularly when the people implementing the measures do not have to follow them themselves.

    This is not criticising those making these decisions, they are doing their best but we know the health effects of long term isolation, social distancing, unemployment and no outlets will be devastating.


  • Options
    #106
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Funny how in this country the most vulnerable are those with guaranteed income living in housing massively subsidized, if they even bother paying their rent. I have said this less than a month ago. The real vulnerable are those a job loss away from serious stress and living standard reduction, renting is worst. Why are people who may never have been unemployed now hit with a e203 rate that the wasters gets ?

    Don't worry.

    I'm sure the next round of FEMPI legislation is being drafted as we speak..


  • Options
    #107
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    How does it work at present?


    I asked you first!

    But one thing for sure - isolation won't be effective if someone you live with is going out an "carrying on as normal" as you suggest.

    It'll only be a matter of time before they carry the virus home to their loved ones, and the cycle begins again.


  • Options
    #108
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AulWan wrote: »
    I asked you first!

    Here's how it could work: the at risk people self isolate as we are now

    The non self isolating person regularly gets tested for any symptoms, and attempts to maintain a safe distance from the at risk members of the family as much as possible.

    The family maintain high levels of sanitation, they could for example, be provided with masks free of charge, wash hands more than normal.

    In the mean time, the government attempts to procure as many ventilators as possible lest these people get I'll.

    These practices will have to be practiced by a minority of families. As such, it is better than the majority of people, who are at low risk of dying from this, having to maintain social isolation indefinitely.


  • Options
    #109
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Here's how it could work: the at risk people self isolate as we are now

    The non self isolating person regularly gets tested for any symptoms, and attempts to maintain a safe distance from the at risk members of the family as much as possible.

    The family maintain high levels of sanitation, they could for example, be provided with masks free of charge.

    In the mean time, the government attempts to procure as many ventilators as possible lest these people get I'll.

    These practices will have to be practiced by a minority of families. As such, it is better than the majority of people, who are at low risk of dying from this, having to maintain social isolation indefinitely.

    I would be 100% certain that the long term implementation of these measures would lead to an even more devastating situation than the virus.

    The loneliness, mental health problems, health effects, depression, hopelessness etc may not all be visible but over time would destroy lives.


  • Options
    #110
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Here's how it could work: the at risk people self isolate as we are now

    The non self isolating person regularly gets tested for any symptoms, and attempts to maintain a safe distance from the at risk members of the family as much as possible.

    The family maintain high levels of sanitation, they could for example, be provided with masks free of charge.

    In the mean time, the government attempts to procure as many ventilators as possible lest these people get I'll.

    These practices will have to be practiced by a minority of families. As such, it is better than the majority of people, who are at low risk of dying from this, having to maintain social isolation indefinitely.

    So, you really think a husband and wife are going to remain at least six feet distance away from each other and their "at risk" children at all times, all while living in the same (probably small) house?

    You're dreaming.


  • Options
    #111
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    AulWan wrote: »
    So, you really think a husband and wife are going to remain at least six feet distance away from each other and their "at risk" children at all times, all while living in the same (probably small) house?

    You're dreaming.

    You think that social distancing and social isolation measures, implemented for everybody, long term would lead to anything other than desperate health effects and social anarchy.

    You're dreaming in that case.

    Even those phrases social distancing and social isolation are horrific.

    I know they're needed now but they are not tenable for long.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    trapp wrote: »
    You think that social distancing and social isolation measures, implemented for everybody, long term would lead to anything other than desperate health effects and social anarchy.

    You're dreaming in that case.

    Even those phrases social distancing and social isolation are horrific.

    I know they're needed now but they are not tenable for long.

    I had a few friends drop in over the last few days, would keep distance etc. Already we are all starting to lose our minds, what? 4-5 days in? It depends on your set up I suppose, youngish people in dublin, will possibly find it harded than maybe a youngish person living in a rural area. Given that generally in cities, there is so much more to do and you really notice how much you take it foregranted at times like these!

    Its the unknown that is the worst, if you knew "just bed down for a month" we could massively curtail deaths etc, and it would be worth it. But nobody knows how this will play out and if many young people got it and didnt pass it on, its going to be a mild inconvenience in the scheme of things...

    I read they expect to have tests soon that will be able to test for the virus and give a result in 15 minutes!


  • Options
    #113
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    trapp wrote: »
    You think that social distancing and social isolation measures, implemented for everybody, long term would lead to anything other than desperate health effects and social anarchy.

    You're dreaming in that case.

    Even those phrases social distancing and social isolation are horrific.

    I know they're needed now but they are not tenable for long.

    Well lets at least give them a real chance first, because what you're suggesting won't work either.

    It would be virtually impossible for a family to live together in the manner which you propose.

    Not to mention, what do you think the effect would be on the mental health of those who would be told they have to isolate from their own families, even their children, for the greater good, while everyone else carries on as normal?

    But its for the greater good, right? There is a callousness to that which doesn't sit right with me.


  • Options
    #114
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I had a few friends drop in over the last few days, would keep distance etc. Already we are all starting to lose our minds, what? 4-5 days in? It depends on your set up I suppose, youngish people in dublin, will possibly find it harded than maybe a youngish person living in a rural area. Given that generally in cities, there is so much more to do and you really notice how much you take it foregranted at times like these!

    Its the unknown that is the worst, if you knew "just bed down for a month" we could massively curtail deaths etc, and it would be worth it. But nobody knows how this will play out and if many young people got it and didnt pass it on, its going to be a mild inconvenience in the scheme of things...

    I read they expect to have tests soon that will be able to test for the virus and give a result in 15 minutes!

    Throw into the mix how people who are now unemployed or losing their business will feel.

    This is a desperate situation but focusing on the virus alone for months with no end in sight will end in disaster.

    Unemployment, no outlets, social distancing, dependent on the state.

    Anyone who can't see that this will end in chaos is not being honest.


  • Options
    #115
    Risteard81
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    AulWan wrote: »
    But its for the greater good, right? There is a callousness to that which doesn't sit right with me.

    That's precisely the same callousness which leads to the current policy. The perceived so-called "greater good" is why half of Europe is imprisoned at present.


  • Options
    #116
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    AulWan wrote: »
    Well lets at least give them a real chance first, because what you're suggesting won't work either.

    It would be virtually impossible for a family to live together in the manner which you propose.

    Not to mention, what do you think the effect would be on the mental health of those who would be told they have to isolate from their own families, even their children, for the greater good, while everyone else carries on as normal?

    But its for the greater good, right? There is a callousness to that which doesn't sit right with me.

    What about those currently living in families where mental health problems, addiction issues etc make staying at home a living nightmare.

    You're implying every family is mum, dad and three kids all getting along fine.

    Life can't be taken in simple black and white.

    The current measures fight the virus but long term will create a raft of problems that will end in social unrest and anarchy across western europe.

    Before the virus if anyone said we should implement strict social distancing, close down all sport and social outlets, close all pubs and restaurants, shut schools and leave thousands unemployed with no hope or no idea when it will all end, the response would be that social anarchy would result.

    It's a hopeless situation to leave people in.


  • Options
    #117
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    trapp wrote: »
    Throw into the mix how people who are now unemployed or losing their business will feel.

    This is a desperate situation but focusing on the virus alone for months with no end in sight will end in disaster.

    Unemployment, no outlets, social distancing, dependent on the state.

    Anyone who can't see that this will end in chaos is not being honest.

    yeah sure I run a business, badly effected by this, mostly classroom and face to face based. Trying to move as much as possible online and to maintain some cash flow...

    the business I can likely keep going, its more the from a social perspective I think its going to be unbearable for anything more than a few weeks. Then the **** will really start hitting the fan if businesses have to closer for more than 2-3 weeks


  • Options
    #118
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    trapp wrote: »
    What about those currently living in families where mental health problems, addiction issues etc make staying at home a living nightmare.

    You're implying every family is mum, dad and three kids all getting along fine.

    I implied no such thing. I gave one type of family set up as a basic example, and I have first hand experience of living in a family with some of the problems you mention, so don't think I haven't considered it.

    It still doesn't change my view that isolating half the population for the greater good of the other, is the solution or even possible.


  • Options
    #119
    trapp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 510 ✭✭✭trapp


    AulWan wrote: »
    I implied no such thing. I gave one type of family set up as a basic example, and I have first hand experience of living in a family with some of the problems you mention, so don't think I haven't considered it.

    t still doesn't change my view that isolating half the population for the greater good of the other, is the solution or even possibleI.

    I'm not sure it is either but I just worry we're opening a whole other can of worms if the current measures are maintained long term.

    Again, just imagine this.

    Schools, colleges shut. Examinations possibly cancelled

    Sports shut down.

    Strict social distancing.

    No pubs, restaurants etc allowed to open.

    No large gatherings.

    Small funerals, no weddings or other celebrations.

    No church services.

    Mass unemployment.

    And no idea of how long it will last except that it will be months.

    The idea of the above would have been unimaginable to put on to a society a few months ago.

    The fact we need to implement them to deal with a virus does not mean that the effects won't be devastating.

    And in time will lead to the breakdown of western european society if implemented long term.

    There is nothing worse than lack of hope and with no end in sight that's where many people across Europe are now.


  • Options
    #120
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    the closing of private colleges and the english as a foreign language industry here is huge, its worth a fortune to this city!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    lainey_d_123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,385 ✭✭✭lainey_d_123


    I can't see this lasting long. It's all novel and cool now working from home and arranging video calls and exercising at home, but I'm already starting to get very lonely. I suffer from depression and anxiety and meeting up with friends and doing activities are crucial for my mental health and survival.

    I really don't see how people can keep up this isolation for longer than about a month or 6 weeks at best.


Advertisement