Relaxation of restrictions

facehugger99

There's too many lads beating their breasts on social media about how they don't care how long the restrictions last as long as we don't put a single old person at risk.

It's the kind of 'simple-thinking' a substantial proportion of the electorate seem to be afflicted with.

The Government need to start developing a strategy that isn't primarily focused on the healthcare system but takes a more holistic approach to society in general.

We need to see a reduction in the current restrictions in the next few weeks if we want to have any kind of economy at the end of this.

mloc123

I think most people could deal with some form of rolling lockdown, where after this 2 weeks we step back to the previous version for 2 weeks followed by another 2 weeks of the stricter rules and repeat etc..

The main issue is, people looking at 7-8 weeks of what we have now... civil disobedience will kick in after a certain length of time and the rules will start to be ignored. From what I have read in France,Italy and Malta... more and more people were no longer complying with the ruels.

ongarite

Coveney's speech gave 2 hints to the future IMO.

Restrictions as they aren't ending at Easter.
Community Call/Rural Link is going to be the template to ease the country back to work.

Was in Aldi this morning, it was packed with people waiting to get into the store because they are selling garden furniture & paint, etc..
People have nothing to do now for 2 weeks.
An outlet of using their time is doing home DIY, gardening is not available now as all DIY, hardware supplier are closed.

KiKi III

easypazz wrote: »

Well done. Great inputs.

At least I’m not blatantly making up terrifying **** like cancer and heart attack patients not getting treated. That’s a horrific level to stoop to try and justify your point of view, and it has no grounding in fact.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

mloc123 wrote: »

I think most people could deal with some form of rolling lockdown, where after this 2 weeks we step back to the previous version for 2 weeks followed by another 2 weeks of the stricter rules and repeat etc..

The main issue is, people looking at 7-8 weeks of what we have now... civil disobedience will kick in after a certain length of time and the rules will start to be ignored. From what I have read in France,Italy and Malta... more and more people were no longer complying with the ruels.

That would actually be a good solution to have 2 weeks on and off. It allows those to travel for essential but not critical journeys.

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand what the restrictions are for.

It’s a temporary measure to prevent overwhelming the health service.

Covid is here to stay, we will need to adapt to life as usual with this disease part of it

easypazz wrote: »

Lots of people are going to die here no matter how its done. If the economic situation is allowed to persist there may be no money for cancer treatment, heart operations, smear tests etc. so in the long run loads of extra people will die anyway.

Listen to Doom and Gloom here.

never_mind

TheCitizen wrote: »

Listen to Doom and Gloom here.

I can't help but to think that some boardies are absolutely LOVING this situation.

easypazz

KiKi III wrote: »

At least I’m not blatantly making up terrifying **** like cancer and heart attack patients not getting treated. That’s a horrific level to stoop to try and justify your point of view, and it has no grounding in fact.

You are right. If this goes on for 6 months there will be loads of money to provide the best medical services in the world so all cancer and heart patients will be looked after brilliantly.

I agree with you.

easypazz

TheCitizen wrote: »

Listen to Doom and Gloom here.

You are correct. There will be plenty of money after this to provide fantastic services to cancer and heart patients.

How stupid of me to think there might not be much money to go around with 20% unemployment and our usual exhaust valve of emigration also cut off.

ITman88

TheCitizen wrote: »

Listen to Doom and Gloom here.

Fair point well done Jimbo

TheCitizen

easypazz wrote: »

You are correct. There will be plenty of money after this to provide fantastic services to cancer and heart patients.

How stupid of me to think there might not be much money to go around with 20% unemployment and our usual exhaust valve of emigration also cut off.

Ok Chicken Little

easypazz

TheCitizen wrote: »

Ok Chicken Little

Well done for another insightful contribution.

Ger Roe

ongarite wrote: »

Coveney's speech gave 2 hints to the future IMO.

Restrictions as they aren't ending at Easter.
Community Call/Rural Link is going to be the template to ease the country back to work.

This... the Community support system is only now being organised. Many people have been redeployed from gov funded social services and community organisations to provide local supports coordinated at county council level. SNA's being called in to action to continue at least some aspects of their previous work.

That is not an immediate short term measure, it will take a number of weeks to get going properly so it is obviously being set up to run for a reasonable timeframe. It might mean that there will be some sort of phased normality for particular groups in society.... but who knows what the end plan is at this stage.

We are still in the early stages of the pandemic here.

odyssey06

KiKi III wrote: »

At least I’m not blatantly making up terrifying **** like cancer and heart attack patients not getting treated. That’s a horrific level to stoop to try and justify your point of view, and it has no grounding in fact.

We won't even know they have cancer or heart disease because the screenings programmes wont be funded and scanning waiting lists will be too long.
Where do you think the funds come from to pay for everything the health service does?

Keeping people cocooned for months and hundreds of thousands of people out of work will have health consequences. Physical and mental and infrastructural.

This isn't a coronavirus restrictions v economy argument. This is about what level of measures are sustainable without having even more severe health consequences.

TheCitizen

ITman88 wrote: »

Fair point well done Jimbo

Lay off the disaster porn ITman it's addictive. "Oh the horror", pass the popcorn

easypazz

TheCitizen wrote: »

Lay off the disaster porn ITman it's addictive. "Oh the horror", pass the popcorn

Thank you for consistently giving us your detailed viewpoints to counter other peoples arguments.

Well done, 2 gold stars in the post for you.

Nollog

TheCitizen wrote: »

Listen to Doom and Gloom here.

To be devils advocate; people die all the time with or without a virus that attacks the respiratory system.

CtevenSrowder

oceanman wrote: »

what more do you need?

Human interaction.

Gael23

The restrictions on the over 70s who are in good health cannot go on indefinitely. You can’t imprison people

TheCitizen

easypazz wrote: »

Thank you for consistently giving us your detailed viewpoints to counter other peoples arguments.

Well done, 2 gold stars in the post for you.

As another poster says we are in the early stages of the pandemic. It's too early to push the panic button. We need to assess how the measures have impacted and we have countries like China and South Korea to study on this. They're coming out of lockdown now after 3 months.

MadYaker

TheCitizen wrote: »

As another poster says we are in the early stages of the pandemic. It's too early to push the panic button. We need to assess how the measures have impacted and we have countries like China and South Korea to study on this. They're coming out of lockdown now after 3 months.

People in Wuhan haven’t even been on lockdown for 3 months. Their lockdown started in mid January, and some think our lockdown will last until July ha

Ace2007

Gael23 wrote: »

The restrictions on the over 70s who are in good health cannot go on indefinitely. You can’t imprison people

There are millions of people around the world imprisoned.

Plus they are in their own homes, they have food, water, heat - you come across as someone who doesn't know what it's like to be poor - They were showing footage of people in India having to walk hundred of kilometers back to their native towns, as they have little money and lost their jobs.

You'd swear this what was in China were people had chains around their doors and weren't allowed out.

What about the parents of high risk children? Honest question - how would you fee if you child were to get very sick and/or die because restrictions were lifted.

Also Gael - would you have the same attitude if the mortality rate for the over 70's was the same as for children or say those between 30-45?

Blueshoe

Gael23 wrote: »

The restrictions on the over 70s who are in good health cannot go on indefinitely. You can’t imprison people

You can and it will. If restrictions are eased too much and too quickly and we end up with a second wave of infections the sh1t will really hit the fan.

This "lockdown" we are having here is mild compared to some of our euro neighbors.

oceanman

easypazz wrote: »

Maybe they are right?

I can't see why, by the end of this month, if cases and deaths stabilise, with increased testing, that we can't relax restrictions to allow hardware shops to open and people allowed exercise more than 2kM.

What is your counterargument to retaining the current level of restrictions if numbers don't explode from here.

I don't have a counterargument, I just don't think any government would risk it so soon.... think of the fallout if they get it wrong!

timmy_mallet

easypazz wrote: »

Its not about providing adequate healthcare, its about providing adequate supports for them to cocoon and make it as comfortable as possible.

For example, test the children and grandchildren of grandparents, then we know its safe for them to spend a weekend together etc.

Are people not doing this anyway? If you feel a cough etc. avoid vulnerable people, stay home from work if feasible, and dont visit a nursing. These are things we should be doing anyway. Maybe post this peak it will become more normal.

Gael23

Ace2007 wrote: »

There are millions of people around the world imprisoned.

Plus they are in their own homes, they have food, water, heat - you come across as someone who doesn't know what it's like to be poor - They were showing footage of people in India having to walk hundred of kilometers back to their native towns, as they have little money and lost their jobs.

You'd swear this what was in China were people had chains around their doors and weren't allowed out.

What about the parents of high risk children? Honest question - how would you fee if you child were to get very sick and/or die because restrictions were lifted.

Also Gael - would you have the same attitude if the mortality rate for the over 70's was the same as for children or say those between 30-45?

Obviously if you are high risk and in poor health you are going to remain indoors. But it’s not good for people’s mental health to be cocooned indefinitely

timmy_mallet

oceanman wrote: »

I don't have a counterargument, I just don't think any government would risk it so soon.... think of the fallout if they get it wrong!

We don't have a government

Ace2007

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Are people not doing this anyway? If you feel a cough etc. avoid vulnerable people, stay home from work if feasible, and dont visit a nursing. These are things we should be doing anyway. Maybe post this peak it will become more normal.

If you work in an office you will know that people work when they have colds because the work needs to be done, it's not right, and as you say it should change, but more than likely it wont'.

storker

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Human interaction.

It's overrated.

Blueshoe

Gael23 wrote: »

Obviously if you are high risk and in poor health you are going to remain indoors. But it’s not good for people’s mental health to be cocooned indefinitely

Not dying in huge numbers is more important at the minute