Social distancing Megathread

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

My personal interest being my health? And my daughter's health?

The health of my elderly parents?

Of course I have an "obvious personal interest".

I can and do work from home. I'm really not bothered about going to the pub.

So the social isolations policies basically don't effect you in the slightest. Weren't you calling me selfish?

Elysium1

Geez there's a lot of sniping in this thread...wasn't sure about dipping my toe in... :eek::)


The economic impact is on my mind. 140,000 jobs estimated lost in less than a week, retail Ireland is saying another 200,000 jobs in the firing line this week. This is unsustainable, especially if this lasts months. Plus, the cost to the state (I'm glad that all the help is there for everyone who needs it), but bigger picture, this could equate to the cost of a war. So many businesses are calling for suspensions to tax liabilities etc. that reduces all the revenue streams inward for the State while it pays out billions. Anyone who can do maths knows that's unsustainable.



From a health and crisis management perspective, Singapore, China and South Korea champion this approach as a sucess. The risk I see with this approach, maybe best reported by China, is that after they managed things internally, they found some re-infections from foreigners coming in the airports. That has to be considered.



What about the other approaches?



I noticed yesterday that in addition to Britain with their outlier approach, apparently in Sweden and Holland there is similar thinking (BBC, RTE). That is - not to avoid the virus 100%. It would mean work and society continues - but rather, the vulnerable groups stay at home and the rest of us are careful in interactions with vulerable groups as we are likely carriers. I asked myself is that a lot to ask - actually, it's a lot less to ask and much more managiable than turning all of society inwards. That alone doesn't make it better or more viable. I'm just considering it all.



Any thoughts?

trapp

AulWan wrote: »

My personal interest being my health? And my daughter's health?

The health of my elderly parents?

Of course I have an "obvious personal interest".

I can and do work from home. I'm really not bothered about going to the pub.

So who are you to speak about the effect of unemployment on thousands of people?

trapp

Elysium1 wrote: »

Geez there's a lot of sniping in this thread...wasn't sure about dipping my toe in... :eek::)


The economic impact is on my mind. 140,000 jobs estimated lost in less than a week, retail Ireland is saying another 200,000 jobs in the firing line this week. This is unsustainable, especially if this lasts months. Plus, the cost to the state (I'm glad that all the help is there for everyone who needs it), but bigger picture, this could equate to the cost of a war. So many businesses are calling for suspensions to tax liabilities etc. that reduces all the revenue streams inward for the State while it pays out billions. Anyone who can do maths knows that's unsustainable.



From a health and crisis management perspective, Singapore, China and South Korea champion this approach as a sucess. The risk I see with this approach, maybe best reported by China, is that after they managed things internally, they found some re-infections from foreigners coming in the airports. That has to be considered.



What about the other approaches?



I noticed yesterday that in addition to Britain with their outlier approach, apparently in Sweden and Holland there is similar thinking (BBC, RTE). That is - not to avoid the virus 100%. It would mean work and society continues - but rather, the vulnerable groups stay at home and the rest of us are careful in interactions with vulerable groups as we are likely carriers. I asked myself is that a lot to ask - actually, it's a lot less to ask and much more managiable than turning all of society inwards. That alone doesn't make it better or more viable. I'm just considering it all.



Any thoughts?

To me this is the only sustainable option.

Isolation and everything that comes with it will destroy lives if implemented long term.

There is no getting away from that.

Multipass

paleoperson wrote: »

Once you have the internet, tv, radio and phone you are not really "isolated".

None of those things help with loneliness.

Personally I’m getting through it with alcohol. Bad idea yeah, but finding it hard to care.

AulWan

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So the social isolations policies basically don't effect you in the slightest. Weren't you calling me selfish?

I have two adult children that live with me, who are used to going to work/college and being out every other night, under my feet.

I have two elderly parents who basically depend on me that I can't visit

So of course the social isolations policies an have an impact me.

But I will adhere to those policies for as long as it takes because there IS no other option.

Elysium1

And it will destroy minds and lives of those who are living, having read a few posts on here. Christ I won't moan about anything, I've plenty to be grateful for.

AulWan

trapp wrote: »

So who are you to speak about the effect of unemployment on thousands of people?

I thought you were worried about keeping the economy going? People working from home will be doing exactly that. Keeping things going.

Also, my aforementioned adult children, one who works in a restaurant and already has been told to sign on until this is over, then they will be rehired, and the other whose on shaky ground.

Do you really want to continue making this personal?

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

I have two adult children that live with me, who are used to going to work/college and being out every other night, under my feet.

I have two elderly parents who basically depend on me that I can't visit

So of course the social isolations policies an have an impact me.

But I will adhere to those policies for as long as it takes because there IS no other option.

There is. You just have no interest in considering them.

Balf

AulWan wrote: »

Do you really want to continue making this personal?

If you don't want it personal, don't post up your personal situation for comment.

I can work from home, but I'm not oblivious to the impacts on others. I don't work in the hospitality sector, but I appreciate what this means for people who own and work in bars and restaurants. I don't work for an airline, but I appreciate many folk suffer when an airline goes to the wall.

Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Idbatterim

Elysium1 wrote: »

Geez there's a lot of sniping in this thread...wasn't sure about dipping my toe in... :eek::)


The economic impact is on my mind. 140,000 jobs estimated lost in less than a week, retail Ireland is saying another 200,000 jobs in the firing line this week. This is unsustainable, especially if this lasts months. Plus, the cost to the state (I'm glad that all the help is there for everyone who needs it), but bigger picture, this could equate to the cost of a war. So many businesses are calling for suspensions to tax liabilities etc. that reduces all the revenue streams inward for the State while it pays out billions. Anyone who can do maths knows that's unsustainable.



From a health and crisis management perspective, Singapore, China and South Korea champion this approach as a sucess. The risk I see with this approach, maybe best reported by China, is that after they managed things internally, they found some re-infections from foreigners coming in the airports. That has to be considered.



What about the other approaches?



I noticed yesterday that in addition to Britain with their outlier approach, apparently in Sweden and Holland there is similar thinking (BBC, RTE). That is - not to avoid the virus 100%. It would mean work and society continues - but rather, the vulnerable groups stay at home and the rest of us are careful in interactions with vulerable groups as we are likely carriers. I asked myself is that a lot to ask - actually, it's a lot less to ask and much more managiable than turning all of society inwards. That alone doesn't make it better or more viable. I'm just considering it all.



Any thoughts?

didnt they have the rainy day fund and could scrap nbp (which they should). I dont think if its short term it will be catrastrophic... say 6-8 weeks, but imagine even peak tourist season being annihilated, on top of everything else... you can forget any tax cuts or welfare increases this budget for example. But depending on how long this goes on for, best case scenario, it might not be that drastic...

AulWan

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is. You just have no interest in considering them.

I'll consider other options when the WHO recommend them, thanks, not some random posters on Boards.

You make it sound as if I actually like what's happening - I don't. I'd much rather be able to take myself off into work tomorrow, because believe it or not, staying in the house for more then a day or two drives me crazy. I'd like to volunteer for the contact tracing posts or to redeploy temporarily to social welfare but I can't because I'm considered high risk, and have more then myself to think about, namely the chance of carrying the infection back home to my parents and my asthmatic daughter. I'm not that selfish.

So I'll leave it there.

Balf

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.

Apparently, this now the official position.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/coronavirus-latest-taoiseach-leo-varadkar-17941475

.And he revealed that an escalation of the lockdown will see old and vulnerable people “cocooned” in their homes for weeks on end as the emergency inevitably worsens.

Good to see some reality starting to creep in.

But I'd wonder how Gubbermint will define what an 'essential' shop is. They're usually ones that get customers.

Lord TSC

I wonder what they define as "vulnerable" though?

Like, I'm not bad. I'm asthmatic, but work from home, so I can keep my distance in social situations.

But my brother has asthma, and flus tend to floor him. He's a teacher, so is grand so long as schools are closed but at 30, is he "vulnerable" enough to stay home?

Dad is 65, diabetic and asthmatic. He's a taxi driver, but reality is he's got bills to pay. Ideally he'd be able to take 6 months off, but he simply can't.

Idbatterim

americans now queing up to buy guns and ammunition!!!

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-15/coronavirus-outbreak-los-angeles-in-shutdown-mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN1TMimVOz0

Idbatterim

Lord TSC wrote: »

I wonder what they define as "vulnerable" though?

Like, I'm not bad. I'm asthmatic, but work from home, so I can keep my distance in social situations.

But my brother has asthma, and flus tend to floor him. He's a teacher, so is grand so long as schools are closed but at 30, is he "vulnerable" enough to stay home?

Dad is 65, diabetic and asthmatic. He's a taxi driver, but reality is he's got bills to pay. Ideally he'd be able to take 6 months off, but he simply can't.

as a taxi driver, youd wonder if you only took card and nobody in the front and had a protectice screen like many people, would the risk be particularly high...

Harry Palmr

Balf wrote: »

Apparently, this now the official position.Good to see some reality starting to creep in.

But I'd wonder how Gubbermint will define what an 'essential' shop is. They're usually ones that get customers.

Elsewhere it's groceries, post office, pharmacies as the minimum. In Germany they are keeping DIY superstores open as well, probably as they tend to stock a lot of lines of practical items.

El Tarangu

Balf wrote: »

Godwin it is, then.

I don't think a comparison with wartime are unjustified - many countries are reintroducing restrictions rarely seen outside of wartime.

The point is that if the whole of Europe hides in the cellar for a few weeks, there won't be much of a society or an economy left when we re-emerge.

Yes, it's definitely going to be bad, very bad, economically. But as the only alternative would involve tens of thousands of people dying, we will unfortunately just have to take it on the chin.

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

I'll consider other options when the WHO recommend them, thanks, not some random posters on Boards.

You make it sound as if I actually like what's happening - I don't. I'd much rather be able to take myself off into work tomorrow, because believe it or not, staying in the house for more then a day or two drives me crazy. I'd like to volunteer for the contact tracing posts or to redeploy temporarily to social welfare but I can't because I'm considered high risk, and have more then myself to think about, namely the chance of carrying the infection back home to my parents and my asthmatic daughter. I'm not that selfish.

So I'll leave it there.

You are the one that initially accused me of being selfish, as if I don't know people that are high risk myself. Don't throw around such accusations if you aren't able to handle any criticisms yourself, especially if what you advocate is in your own self interest.

And it's a discussion board. We don't have to wait on the WHO recommendations to have a discussion on what future actions should be taken. I don't believe the WHO have issued a minimum self isolation period for Ireland anyhow, or that they ever will.

Regardless, I severely doubt that we will be self isolating en mass come end of June and at least certainly hope we're not!

Gael23

What does this involve and what are the things you can and can’t do? I live with 2 other guys and share a bathroom with one of them. Can I leave my house at any time to bring my dog for a walk or something?

mp3guy

HSE have a guide

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/self-isolation-and-limited-social-interaction.html

JP Liz V1

I want a luxury shed like Claire Byrne

Gael23

mp3guy wrote: »

HSE have a guide

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/self-isolation-and-limited-social-interaction.html

I couldn’t do that. I’d have to go and stay at my parents house or something.

AulWan

What you are suggesting IS selfish.

It must be easy to take risks with the lives of those who are more likely to fall seriously ill and die, when you don't fall into that group yourself.

Lord TSC wrote: »

I wonder what they define as "vulnerable" though?

@Lord TSC if your father is over 60, diabetic and asthmatic, then him working driving a taxi is insane. Please try and get him to stop.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/at-risk-groups.html

You are more at risk of serious illness if you catch coronavirus and you:

• are 60 years of age and over
• have a long-term medical condition – for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer or high blood pressure
• have a weak immune system

(immunosuppressed)

Balf

El Tarangu wrote: »

Yes, it's definitely going to be bad, very bad, economically. But as the only alternative would involve tens of thousands of people dying, we will unfortunately just have to take it on the chin.

Somebody will have to take something on the chin.

However, the statement from Leo tonight suggests reality is dawning that its the economic costs that will entail unacceptable impacts on lives.

I'm feeling a little more comfortable about the direction of travel. However, in calmer times we will need a debate that equips people with the knowledge and tools they need to appreciate the issues in play here.

People were/are too eager to comply with obviously senseless instructions that are simply unsustainable. The desire to be responsible in the face of a crisis is good. How it manifests itself is questionable.

trapp

Balf wrote: »

Somebody will have to take something on the chin.

However, the statement from Leo tonight suggests reality is dawning that its the economic costs that will entail unacceptable impacts on lives.

I'm feeling a little more comfortable about the direction of travel. However, in calmer times we will need a debate that equips people with the knowledge and tools they need to appreciate the issues in play here.

People were/are too eager to comply with obviously senseless instructions that are simply unsustainable. The desire to be responsible in the face of a crisis is good. How it manifests itself is questionable.

What direction do you think Leo will bring us?

In terms of restrictions etc.

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

What you are suggesting IS selfish.

It must be easy to take risks with the lives of those who are more likely to fall seriously ill and die, when you don't fall into that group yourself.



@Lord TSC if your father is over 60, diabetic and asthmatic, then him working driving a taxi is insane. Please try and get him to stop.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/at-risk-groups.html

You are more at risk of serious illness if you catch coronavirus and you:

• are 60 years of age and over
• have a long-term medical condition – for example, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer or high blood pressure
• have a weak immune system

(immunosuppressed)

It's not selfish. You are refusing to look at the larger picture of society as a whole and the economic impact of sustained isolation, aswell as the mental impact it can have. You are just thinking of yourself. Your position is essentially that if you have to self isolate long term, then so should everyone else. It's akin to saying "if I'm going down, then I'm bringing everyone down with me". THAT is selfish. For some people, the pub is the only social outlet they may have. Not everyone can work from home. We will have mass job losses (worse then already) if we are forced to self isolate for months on end. People's business' will go under. The government can only borrow so much, and the money borrowed will have to be paid back. That means austerity. The longer the isolation goes on, the more we need to borrow and the longer we'll need austerity. We've just had 10 years of austerity, we're just about to come out the other end. You seem incapable of grasping all this, and lazily call others selfish for simply looking at the bigger picture.

Most people are happy to do what we can at the moment, self isolating. It is simply unfeasible for it to last for months on end however, the position you are advocating.

Ulysses Gaze

El Tarangu wrote: »

I don't think a comparison with wartime are unjustified - many countries are reintroducing restrictions rarely seen outside of wartime.



Yes, it's definitely going to be bad, very bad, economically. But as the only alternative would involve tens of thousands of people dying, we will unfortunately just have to take it on the chin.

I think the biggest difference with wartime compared to now is in terms of redeployment of people.

In wartime you either joined up and fought or were redeployed to factory work or other manual labour.

That really doesn't exist in this context.

uck51js9zml2yt

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I want a luxury shed like Claire Byrne

I hope she has planning permission for it.

tuxy

About going outside.
I can't see any problem in going out for some light exercise once it's possible to keep a distance of 2 metres from others.
The exercise will be good for your mental and psychical health.