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
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Comments
-
No one has all the answers, all we can do is speculate from our own perspectives.
We could all be wrong, only time will tell when we have the benefit of hindsight.
From what I can see the virus seems to be most dangerous to anyone 65+ and/or with underlying conditions, and those who are immunocompromised.
The vast majority of deaths have occurred in nursing homes.
My line of thinking would be to invest all resources into protecting and supporting the people in those groups, and let everyone else assess their own risk and get on with things,....SNIP...
While I disagree in general with that kind of a plan, you do make good points in a sensible way and a you say...who really knows what is the right thing to do. However, I still prefer the solutions being suggested by most experts in the field which there seems to be general agreement almost across the world on.
What you suggest may well be where we all end up though if a vaccine does not appear by mid next year.0 -
Theres likely people there working elsewhere though so those people will go to where the spread is higher and bring it back into the local community. Perhaps not Bantry as much but Clon likely does have a decent amount of people commuting into the city centre for work. Maybe they'll exclude West Cork completely, but I think it'd be hard to exclude places like Midleton, Cobh, Fermoy etc as they're pretty much commuter towns
Besides the city, Fermoy and Ballincollig are quite high0 -
Besides the city, Fermoy and Ballincollig are quite high
^^THIS^^
And locking down just the city is unrealistic. It becomes very difficult to "police". It is obviously harsh on those in places like Bantry, Baltimore, etc but these kind of things work better with simple, easy to understand rules such as entire County being included.0 -
-
This is off topic but a good wya to educate people on what the city is. To the above Ballincollig is an urban town yes but it's inside the city council area so would likely to be put to level two to. the city is made up of the city centre and 19 city suburbs. outside of the city in the city council area is four urban towns (Glanmire, Blarney, Tower and Ballincollig) and city hinterland.
the city centre is made up of seven sub areas = city centre island, shandon, Victoria Quarter, north docks, south docks, south parish and south gate
the city suburbs are split into four geographical areas (north west, north east, south east and south west) and are made up of = blackrock, mahon, douglas, rochestown, frankfield, togher, wilton, bishopstown, ballypheane, turners cross, ballinlough, UCC, Tivoli, mayfield, the glen, blackpool, farrenferris, knocknaheeney and sunday's well
All city suburbs are refferred to also as city neighbourhoods but the city neighbourhoods go beyond just that list, i.e. a city suburb is made up of city neighbourhoods, including one neighbourhood named after the suburb. These other neighbourhoods are = mount oval/garryduff, maryborough, donnybrook, grange, the lough, dennehey's cross, model farm road, guarranabraher, churchfield, fairhill, montonottee and ballintemple
do most people know this? probably not. most peopel are obsessed with calling the city centre the city and nothing else in the city the city. confusing. it would be nice if this strucutre was better known. but this is off topic0 -
Advertisement
-
Treehelpplease wrote: »This is off topic but a good wya to educate people on what the city is. To the above Ballincollig is an urban town yes but it's inside the city council area so would likely to be put to level two to. the city is made up of the city centre and 19 city suburbs. outside of the city in the city council area is four urban towns (Glanmire, Blarney, Tower and Ballincollig) and city hinterland.
the city centre is made up of seven sub areas = city centre island, shandon, Victoria Quarter, north docks, south docks, south parish and south gate
the city suburbs are split into four geographical areas (north west, north east, south east and south west) and are made up of = blackrock, mahon, douglas, rochestown, frankfield, togher, wilton, bishopstown, ballypheane, turners cross, ballinlough, UCC, Tivoli, mayfield, the glen, blackpool, farrenferris, knocknaheeney and sunday's well
All city suburbs are refferred to also as city neighbourhoods but the city neighbourhoods go beyond just that list, i.e. a city suburb is made up of city neighbourhoods, including one neighbourhood named after the suburb. These other neighbourhoods are = mount oval/garryduff, maryborough, donnybrook, grange, the lough, dennehey's cross, model farm road, guarranabraher, churchfield, fairhill, montonottee and ballintemple
Yes the city boundary was extended last year which the residents had no say in. Ballincollig definitely didn’t want to be. In the city.0 -
i don't care what ballincollig people think. it is in the city council area and controlled by the city council. That isn't disputable. But as I said, it isn't in the actual city (i.e. the city of Cork), it's an urban town outside it controlled by the city council. But it's likely going to be hard to put the actual city on level 3 so it will likely go beyond the actual city, ie. carrigaline, BALLINCOLLIG, glanmire, blarney, cobh
look at the map i attatched from the city development plan, it makes it clearer. It's hard to just restrict the blue area (actual city)0 -
Treehelpplease wrote: »...SNIP....
Do people know this? probably not. most peopel are obsessed with calling the city centre the city and nothing else in the city the city. confusing. it would be nice if this strucutre was better known. but this is off topic
Well I wasn't confused at all until I read all that.0 -
-
Treehelpplease wrote: »i don't care what ballincollig people think. it is in the city council area and controlled by the city council. That isn't disputable. But as I said, it isn't in the actual city (i.e. the city of Cork), it's an urban town outside it coi ntrolled by the city council. But it's likely going to be hard to put the actual city on level 3 so it will likely go beyond the actual city, ie. carrigaline, BALLINCOLLIG, glanmire, blarney, cobh
look at the map i attatched from the city development plan, it makes it clearer. It's hard to just restrict the blue area (actual city)
It does effect the areas, prices of graves went up as were then in city area, I mentioned Ballincollig cause at the time they had plenty posters up saying they didn’t want to go into city , it was unfair on the residents and locals living in these towns, villages.
So is it still so Ballincollig co.cork or Ballincollig Cork City on the address?0 -
Advertisement
-
Treehelpplease wrote: »sorry, i tried my best. the map attatched explains it better.
Yeah sry...didn't mean to be nasty there. It's just I have lived here nearly 50 years now and managed to never need to know or think about that level of detail as a normal person.
To normal people on the street, if you are in the City council then you are in the city. Otherwise, you are in the county. Never really a need to go beyond that.
I refer you back to my earlier post about keeping rules simple and easily understood.0 -
It does effect the areas, prices of graves went up as were then in city area, I mentioned Ballincollig cause at the time they had plenty posters up saying they didn’t want to go into city , it was unfair on the residents and locals living in these towns, villages.
So is it still so Ballincollig co.cork or Ballincollig Cork City on the address?
that has nothing to do with what I said and also yes the people of ballincollig didn't get a choice but if they had who is to say the majority wouldn't want to join the city council area. I doubt most care
cork according to eircode as it is in city council area, not county council area. the "welcome to Cork, Cork City council" signs appear when entering ballincollig for that reason. It is an urban town in the city council area. But if the city (city centre + city suburbs, i.e. actual city) is put to level three, so will ballincollig.0 -
Whatever about Ballincollig, Fermoy ain't in the city and has higher rates of covid than some parts of the city. To leave them out would be stupidity0
-
Yeah sry...didn't mean to be nasty there. It's just I have lived here nearly 50 years now and managed to never need to know or think about that level of detail as a normal person.
To normal people on the street, if you are in the City council then you are in the city. Otherwise, you are in the county. Never really a need to go beyond that.
I refer you back to my earlier post about keeping rules simple and easily understood.
i think the opposite. i live near the lough and people tell me do i go into cork city often. but i agree, most people don't need to know that, i have just knownt his for a while and saw this as a weird but apt time to share the knowledge haha.0 -
The LEA map is updated tomorrow, we will see the exact locations of cases in Cork up to Monday.0
-
^^THIS^^
And locking down just the city is unrealistic. It becomes very difficult to "police". It is obviously harsh on those in places like Bantry, Baltimore, etc but these kind of things work better with simple, easy to understand rules such as entire County being included.
I think it may come to this, increasing restrictions on bits of the county and leaving the rest be is a near impossible task. If it's the whole county, time to put up or shut up. Tough titty etc.0 -
Treehelpplease wrote: »i don't care what ballincollig people think. it is in the city council area and controlled by the city council. That isn't disputable. But as I said, it isn't in the actual city (i.e. the city of Cork), it's an urban town outside it controlled by the city council. But it's likely going to be hard to put the actual city on level 3 so it will likely go beyond the actual city, ie. carrigaline, BALLINCOLLIG, glanmire, blarney, cobh
look at the map i attatched from the city development plan, it makes it clearer. It's hard to just restrict the blue area (actual city)
God, nothing good has come from that boundary extension...0 -
It does effect the areas, prices of graves went up as were then in city area, I mentioned Ballincollig cause at the time they had plenty posters up saying they didn’t want to go into city , it was unfair on the residents and locals living in these towns, villages.
So is it still so Ballincollig co.cork or Ballincollig Cork City on the address?
Ballincollig Cork City0 -
^^THIS^^
And locking down just the city is unrealistic. It becomes very difficult to "police". It is obviously harsh on those in places like Bantry, Baltimore, etc but these kind of things work better with simple, easy to understand rules such as entire County being included.
While on the one hand that makes sense, on the other hand you are saying that it's easier to police a ginormous boarder than a relatively small one!0 -
No one has all the answers, all we can do is speculate from our own perspectives.
We could all be wrong, only time will tell when we have the benefit of hindsight.
From what I can see the virus seems to be most dangerous to anyone 65+ and/or with underlying conditions, and those who are immunocompromised.
The vast majority of deaths have occurred in nursing homes.
My line of thinking would be to invest all resources into protecting and supporting the people in those groups, and let everyone else assess their own risk and get on with things, keep all industries open and people working while maintaining cough etiquette, masks and social distancing etc.
I just don’t see the logic in telling fit, healthy young people to stay locked in their houses.
Let those who are able to work keep the economy rolling while we do all we can to protect those at risk.
But as you said yourself, I don’t know if that’s definitively the right course of action. I just see that 6 we’ve gone through months of lockdown and restrictions already and we’re back to square one.
That’s what’s making me question the logic of another 9 months of this.
This is far too simplistic. What do you mean by "invest all resources into protecting and supporting the people in those groups"
My parents are both under 65. One has an underlying condition. Both work and a sibling lives with them. Are all three of them meant to stop working under your plan and not go outside and meet others?
I read that 20% of the population has an underlying condition. Add in all those above 65 and that is a significant portion of the population! If you add in family members they live with it rises even more.
People like you complaining about potential lockdowns and suggesting that fit, healthy people should be allowed continue with no additional restrictions need to look at the stats. The majority of cases are those under 45. Its not older people that are spreading it yet you want them to have restrictions. Sounds selfish to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
If I'm remembering the same conversation I think I was questioning how someone could accurately gauge how well several bars were adhering to guidelines while driving past. I'll always call out posts when it seems like they're drawing conclusions from incomplete information, same as here.FFS. Last week when people were on about their experiences of bars, you were quick enough to chime in & say there was no problem.0 -
This is far too simplistic. What do you mean by "invest all resources into protecting and supporting the people in those groups"
My parents are both under 65. One has an underlying condition. Both work and a sibling lives with them. Are all three of them meant to stop working under your plan and not go outside and meet others?
I read that 20% of the population has an underlying condition. Add in all those above 65 and that is a significant portion of the population! If you add in family members they live with it rises even more.
People like you complaining about potential lockdowns and suggesting that fit, healthy people should be allowed continue with no additional restrictions need to look at the stats. The majority of cases are those under 45. Its not older people that are spreading it yet you want them to have restrictions. Sounds selfish to me.
I genuinely can’t understand why your post is so hostile when I made it quite clear that I don’t claim to have all the answers and I’m simply posting from my own perspective, as everyone else is here including yourself.
With the benefit of hindsight in a few years it might turn out that your own theory on the right thing to do was the completely wrong one, so I suggest you wait and see before being so sanctimonious and condescending.
And I’m not being remotely selfish, not one iota, you have no idea of the level of sacrifices I’ve made over the last few months.
I lost my job, I spent the whole of lockdown (13 weeks, because I started restricting my movements before the government made it mandatory) alone in my bedroom with my thoughts, back living with my parents.
My hopes of being a homeowner at some point in my life are now pushed even further into the future because you need to be in full time permanent employment for 2 years to be approved, and there is now a gap in my employment.
My ongoing treatment precancerous cervical cells was cancelled for almost 5 months. My counselling sessions only restarted last month.
I have given up a lot and I have no issue with that because it was for the greater good, but if you’re honestly saying that I and others should take another 9 months+ of it gladly on the chin then you’re going to be really disappointed, because there has to be a balance in the best interests of everyone.
And I honestly don’t believe that these rolling lockdowns and closing of industries is in everyone’s best interests.
If your parents are at risk and terrified of contracting the virus, then yes they absolutely should be staying at home and not going out meeting people.
The covid payment is there to financially support them with their cocooning, and your sibling too, as it is already supporting the many thousands who have lost their jobs.
The people who are most at risk should be the people who are limiting their movements.
That’s surely a no brainer and not an unreasonable ask, if they are that terrified of contracting the virus.
Focus the resources and attention on those who are most vulnerable rather than closing down businesses that only a negligible amount of cases have come from.
I don’t see what’s so simplistic about that, especially when the only other option is to lock down entire counties.0 -
I genuinely can’t understand why your post is so hostile when I made it quite clear that I don’t claim to have all the answers and I’m simply posting from my own perspective, as everyone else is here including yourself.
With the benefit of hindsight in a few years it might turn out that your own theory on the right thing to do was the completely wrong one, so I suggest you wait and see before being so sanctimonious and condescending.
And I’m not being remotely selfish, not one iota, you have no idea of the level of sacrifices I’ve made over the last few months.
I lost my job, I spent the whole of lockdown (13 weeks, because I started restricting my movements before the government made it mandatory) alone in my bedroom with my thoughts, back living with my parents.
My hopes of being a homeowner at some point in my life are now pushed even further into the future because you need to be in full time permanent employment for 2 years to be approved, and there is now a gap in my employment.
My ongoing treatment precancerous cervical cells was cancelled for almost 5 months. My counselling sessions only restarted last month.
I have given up a lot and I have no issue with that because it was for the greater good, but if you’re honestly saying that I and others should take another 9 months+ of it gladly on the chin then you’re going to be really disappointed, because there has to be a balance in the best interests of everyone.
And I honestly don’t believe that these rolling lockdowns and closing of industries is in everyone’s best interests.
If your parents are at risk and terrified of contracting the virus, then yes they absolutely should be staying at home and not going out meeting people.
The covid payment is there to financially support them with their cocooning, and your sibling too, as it is already supporting the many thousands who have lost their jobs.
The people who are most at risk should be the people who are limiting their movements.
That’s surely a no brainer and not an unreasonable ask, if they are that terrified of contracting the virus.
Focus the resources and attention on those who are most vulnerable rather than closing down businesses that only a negligible amount of cases have come from.
I don’t see what’s so simplistic about that, especially when the only other option is to lock down entire counties.
We have all made sacrifices this year and 2020 has been tough on everyone for different reasons. I'm sorry you have gone through so much. I won't go into too much detail on my own personal situation but I have also lost my job. I have a mortgage and as a single applicant I have the responsibility of paying it myself. We've also had a close family member die earlt in lockdown and were unable to have a normal funeral. It was heartbreaking that im their last weeks we couldnt visit them in hospital. Every family has had challenges this year.
I stand by my claim that I found your proposal selfish. One (large) segment of the population has to take the brunt of the restrictions and I think that is unfair. I dont think this is sanctimonious.
The covid payment does not cover those who live with someone that has an underlying condition. I dont think many employers would take kindly to their employees being out of work for a sustained period of time when they are fit and healthy and let's face it that this will go on for months if not years.
I also think that older people and those with underlying conditions are just as entitled to be able to see their families as everyone else.
I don't think my post was hostile and think your response was more scathing and personal! However, I understand that boards is a forum for debate and people will have differing views. This does not necessarily make them hostile!0 -
We have all made sacrifices this year and 2020 has been tough on everyone for different reasons. I'm sorry you have gone through so much. I won't go into too much detail on my own personal situation but I have also lost my job as have countless others. I have a mortgage and as a single applicant I will have the responsibility of paying it myself. We've also had a close family member die earlt in lockdown and were unable to have a normal funeral. It was heartbreaking that im their last weeks we couldnt visit them in hospital. Every family has had challenges this year.
I stand by my claim that I found your proposal selfish. One (large) segment of the population has to take the brunt of the restrictions and I think that is unfair. I dont think this is sanctimonious.
The covid payment does not cover those who live with someone that has an underlying condition. I dont think many employers would take kindly to their employees being out of work for a sustained period of time when they are fit and healthy and let's face it that this will go on for months if not years.
I also think that older people and those with underlying conditions are just as entitled to be able to see their families as everyone else.
I also don't think my post was hostile.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one, because logically I don’t see why those who are most at risk shouldn’t be the ones taking the most precautions.
They are the ones who are most vulnerable, so therefore they are the ones who should be taking the brunt of the restrictions, when it’s in their personal best interests to do so.
Being entitled doesn’t really come in to it being honest, I mean yes I do think they should be able to see friends and family and go out and about, but is it fair to expect the whole of society to restrict their movements over a sustained period of time just to make that a bit little bit safer for them?
Do you think it’s fair to ask them to do that for 18+ months, staying out of work, missing out on seeing their own families and friends, just so those who are at risk can have the same ‘entitlements’ as someone who isn’t high risk?
The covid payment should cover relatives of those who are cocooning to alleviate the risk if necessary, that’s something the government definitely need to look at.
I think level 2 is a good compromise, because I’m not in favour of a free for all scenario.
I think that there are sufficient safety precautions in place and enough of society is opened up that some glimmer of normality has returned for some.
But rather than go into level 3 I do think it would be in the best interests of the majority for those who are vulnerable to cocoon to protect themselves, rather than close down businesses, more mass layoffs and move the whole county to level 3.
If that makes me selfish then so be it, but a conversation needs to be had about the direction this is taking.
We’re only 6 months in and public support is wavering by the day, there is no way the public will be going along with this in another 6 months if we’re going in and out of lockdown every few weeks, and that’s dangerous for everyone.
If the government people will stay at home and avoid their families at Christmas time after the **** show of a year we just had, they’re going to be very very wrong. People just aren’t going to do it.0 -
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one, because logically I don’t see why those who are most at risk shouldn’t be the ones taking the most precautions.
They are the ones who are most vulnerable, so therefore they are the ones who should be taking the brunt of the restrictions, when it’s in their personal best interests to do so.
Being entitled doesn’t really come in to it being honest, I mean yes I do think they should be able to see friends and family and go out and about, but is it fair to expect the whole of society to restrict their movements over a sustained period of time just to make that a bit little bit safer for them?
Do you think it’s fair to ask them to do that for 18+ months, staying out of work, missing out on seeing their own families and friends, just so those who are at risk can have the same ‘entitlements’ as someone who isn’t high risk?
The covid payment should cover relatives of those who are cocooning to alleviate the risk if necessary, that’s something the government definitely need to look at.
I think level 2 is a good compromise, because I’m not in favour of a free for all scenario.
I think that there are sufficient safety precautions in place and enough of society is opened up that some glimmer of normality has returned for some.
But rather than go into level 3 I do think it would be in the best interests of the majority for those who are vulnerable to cocoon to protect themselves, rather than close down businesses, more mass layoffs and move the whole county to level 3.
If that makes me selfish then so be it, but a conversation needs to be had about the direction this is taking.
We’re only 6 months in and public support is wavering by the day, there is no way the public will be going along with this in another 6 months if we’re going in and out of lockdown every few weeks, and that’s dangerous for everyone.
Oh come on! The second round of lockdowns where individual counties have gone to level 3 have been 3 weeks or so at most. That is what I am referring to. I'm not sure where you are getting 18 months from. No lockdown will last 18 months and no one will have to restrict their movements to that extent for that length of time.
I think if we did go to level 2 and those at risk were told to restrict their visitors etc that the impact would be minimal as we have seen the majority of cases are those under 45. The cases wouldnt come down significantly and a big part of lockdown is to ensure that the rise in cases doesnt cause the health service to collapse.
Anyway, so far the government has put counties with rising cases on level 3 and it has applied to everyone (at risk or not).0 -
Oh come on! The second round of lockdowns where individual counties have gone to level 3 have been 3 weeks or so at most. That is what I am referring to. I'm not sure where you are getting 18 months from. No lockdown will last 18 months and no one will have to restrict their movements to that extent for that length of time.
I think if we did go to level 2 and those at risk were told to restrict their visitors etc that the impact would be minimal as we have seen the majority of cases are those under 45. The cases wouldnt come down significantly and a big part of lockdown is to ensure that the rise in cases doesnt cause the health service to collapse.
Anyway, so far the government has put counties with rising cases on level 3 and it has applied to everyone (at risk or not).
The government have said we can expect a minimum of 9 months+ of rolling restrictions, taking us well into 2021. That brings us to over a year and a half of restrictions, that’s where I got 18 months or so from.
Going in and out of lockdown is what I’m taking issue with here, cause it’s simply not sustainable.
The majority of the cases are in the under 45s yes, but the majority of the hospitalisations and deaths are in the 65+ category.
Our hospitalisation rate and mortality rate is currently still quite low despite the increase in cases.
I’m not sure about today but as of earlier this week, there were 0 covid patients in CUH and I think 3 in the mercy.
That hardly justifies moving things to level 3, our hospitals aren’t on the verge of collapse and the health service isn’t struggling.
The fact that it applies to everyone, at risk or not at risk, will bring about less adherence in the long run.
That’s why I’m saying it’s ridiculous that the government plans to continue doing this well into late 2021, support is diminishing and that’s where the danger is.
When the people aren’t on board it causes problems. And they aren’t going to be on board with their futures being held at ransom for who knows how long, with no end in sight.0 -
No one reads anything more than 5 lines long.
Just feel sorry for business owners that will have to shut at short notice again.0 -
How does Ireland compare to Japan and South Korea, I presume the latter are on top of it? The Japanese, and Koreans, live in densely packed urban areas and yet they'e not having the same problems.
If the above is true then the issue is our behaviour as a society and a lack of civic responsibility to each other.0 -
For the two opposing extreme plans that people are proposing.
1. Open up, let rip and protect the vunerable.
Too many variables to consider, too costly to resource/manage and the risk of missing many with undiagnosed conditions that are vunerable to c19.
2. Hard lockdown, shut up shop aparrt from the real essential services, close borders.etc.
No leadership, no balls to do this. Legalities of closing borders etc. Resourcing the Policing of the lockdown.
Theres probably many more reasons for both sides, thats why we're in this throttling on/off strategy. We're still learning too.
I do wish we had a more proactive/imaginative government(politicians in general) but as we've seen from the past few decades we dont.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the HSE estimate was about 40% are in the risk group when you factor in underlying conditions, obesity and over 65. Add in the people who will live with those 40% who won't want to see them get sick and there's no functioning economy if all those people cocoon and everyone else lives normal. Businesses would shut down as they'd lose employees and customers with that strategy anyway.0
Advertisement