Relaxation of restrictions

lord quackinton

Penfailed wrote: »

What would you rather? More deaths and a booming economy? The world is going to enter a recession regardless of what Leo and the lads do.

The actions taken by this government is what is causing our economy to implode

I will say what the majority of people believe but won’t say
It is a Recession we are entering but it has the potential to be a long term economic depression
Public sector employees and those on social welfare this time will receive huge live changing cuts
You think 2008 was bad, what is coming this year could be widespread panic

Take the question you asked and flip it on yourself
My answer is 10,000 lives annually is acceptable if it means we can save our economy and our country and our children’s future

Plumbthedepths

lord quackinton wrote: »

The actions taken by this government is what is causing our economy to implode

I will say what the majority of people believe but won’t say
It is a Recession we are entering but it has the potential to be a long term economic depression
Public sector employees and those on social welfare this time will receive huge live changing cuts
You think 2008 was bad, what is coming this year could be widespread panic

Take the question you asked and flip it on yourself
My answer is 10,000 lives annually is acceptable if it means we can save our economy and our country and our children’s future

The IMF has described what is coming as the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression.



https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/indicators/covid-19-imf-anticipates-sharply-negative-economic-growth-fallout-since-the-great-depression/articleshow/75067158.cms

Cupatae

lord quackinton wrote: »

The actions taken by this government is what is causing our economy to implode

I will say what the majority of people believe but won’t say
It is a Recession we are entering but it has the potential to be a long term economic depression
Public sector employees and those on social welfare this time will receive huge live changing cuts
You think 2008 was bad, what is coming this year could be widespread panic

Take the question you asked and flip it on yourself
My answer is 10,000 lives annually is acceptable if it means we can save our economy and our country and our children’s future

They had a choice to make, protect the people or protect the economy, they chose the people, and rightly so imo we can always rebuild.. look at the UK tried to protect the economy and are paying a high price for it now.

thebaz

Ace2007 wrote: »

Do you trust that journalist knows the difference between median and average given how few on here do?

What source do they quoted for their figures

For example Tony states that the age range for all deaths is from 32 to 105. So that means that are young people dying - but that’s not getting reported here - all I read about is the elderly dying

Well you snapped at me earlier for not knowing the difference , and I am just quoting now what the Irish Times are reporting -

and as I've said in previous comments, I realise some that die are under 60, most with under-lying health conditions or are immuno-suppressed.

Hence why restrictions are in place, mainly to protect the vulnerable, and not to over-burden health system at once.

donaghs

Blueshoe wrote: »

Low risk of dying group still can catch and spread the virus. Imagine an office of young people. They are working away and different individuals become infected and start spreading it around between each other, when they shop, when they are out and about.

You are not solving anything by allowing people who might not die from the virus to go back to work as per normal. You are actually allowing the virus to spread again.

Not a hope in hell of the government risking that.

Provided it is done “incrementally” among low risk group who are not in contact with the high risk group, if they spread infection, 99.9....% will gain immunity. Most will have very mild or no symptoms at all.

donaghs

Cupatae wrote: »

They had a choice to make, protect the people or protect the economy, they chose the people, and rightly so imo we can always rebuild.. look at the UK tried to protect the economy and are paying a high price for it now.

Something like the Great Depression will kill more people than Covid. Economists can point it out, but it’s not immediate so politicians have no incentive to take action.

Cork Boy 53

lord quackinton wrote: »

The actions taken by this government is what is causing our economy to implode

I will say what the majority of people believe but won’t say
It is a Recession we are entering but it has the potential to be a long term economic depression
Public sector employees and those on social welfare this time will receive huge live changing cuts
You think 2008 was bad, what is coming this year could be widespread panic

Take the question you asked and flip it on yourself
My answer is 10,000 lives annually is acceptable if it means we can save our economy and our country and our children’s future

If restrictions are lifted too soon before a vaccine is developed the annual death toll would be far higher than 10000. You could multiply that figure by a factor of 7 or 8.

What Username Guidelines

Ace2007 wrote: »

Do you trust that journalist knows the difference between median and average given how few on here do?

What source do they quoted for their figures

For example Tony states that the age range for all deaths is from 32 to 105. So that means that are young people dying - but that’s not getting reported here - all I read about is the elderly dying

Exactly, also in Italy very few young people have died because young people respond to treatment better, therefore it’s more accessible when in a triage situation. Lots of people in their 30s in ICU and general hospitals in bergamo (I believe I read 1800? at one point but cannot find source now).

So sending everyone under 40 back to work isn’t a simple solution to not overrun hospitals.

Penfailed

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The IMF has described what is coming as the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression.



https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/indicators/covid-19-imf-anticipates-sharply-negative-economic-growth-fallout-since-the-great-depression/articleshow/75067158.cms

Yep. Nothing the Irish government will do can change that.

Nermal

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If restrictions are lifted too soon before a vaccine is developed the annual death toll would be far higher than 10000. You could multiply that figure by a factor of 7 or 8.

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

donaghs

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. Nothing the Irish government will do can change that.

If every government can implement a lockdown, every government can also collaborate on an exit strategy. Politically harder though.

citysights

Blueshoe wrote: »

Excuse me?

Ad Nauseam = over and over again to the point that it gets tiring and fatiguing.

Kind of like a broken record.

niallo27

Blueshoe wrote: »

Low risk of dying group still can catch and spread the virus. Imagine an office of young people. They are working away and different individuals become infected and start spreading it around between each other, when they shop, when they are out and about.

You are not solving anything by allowing people who might not die from the virus to go back to work as per normal. You are actually allowing the virus to spread again.

Not a hope in hell of the government risking that.

You said earlier on you think 4 more weeks and some restrictions lifted. Now you are saying you dont want any restrictions lifted.

Plumbthedepths

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. Nothing the Irish government will do can change that.

So just push the economy over a cliff? What outcomes do you think the health service will deliver in a depression style environment. We have seen what it delivers in an age of austerity .

Cupatae

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So just push the economy over a cliff? What outcomes do you think the health service will deliver in a depression style environment. We have seen what it delivers in an age of austerity .

So just protect the economy at all costs, till the health service gets overrun, what sort of economy do you think we d have with mass amounts of people getting sick/dying?

We are simply gonna have to take a hit to the economy, that ships already sailed. Its a truly **** position to be in.

Plumbthedepths

Cupatae wrote: »

So just protect the economy at all costs, till the health service gets overrun, what sort of economy do you think we d have with mass amounts of people getting sick/dying?

Nope, but there needs to be a balance not an economic wasteland after a lockdown.

Ulysses Gaze

Nermal wrote: »

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

Truth is, we don't know how many will die if we try a) herd immunity or just b) relax restrictions a bit. We are relying on modelling based on wildly differing figures globally and a bunch of bull**** figures from China.

If you put garbage figures into any statistical modelling calculator, you will get garbage out.

Reality is Nermal, we don't know enough about a virus that we only have experience of for 4 months.

Logan Roy

Nermal wrote: »

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. Show your work. Show how 80,000 people could die from this here, and show us your references.

There's something deeply wrong with this fella. As soon as something bad happens he moves on to the next miserable thought.

One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.

Blueshoe

Blueshoe wrote: »

Low risk of dying group still can catch and spread the virus. Imagine an office of young people. They are working away and different individuals become infected and start spreading it around between each other, when they shop, when they are out and about.

You are not solving anything by allowing people who might not die from the virus to go back to work as per normal. You are actually allowing the virus to spread again.

Not a hope in hell of the government risking that.

That's fine. The elderly and at risk people need to be cocooned until there is a vaccine so that the pressure on ICU beds is reduced. The much smaller proportion of young people who will get seriously ill will more likely be within the ICU capacity.

It's tough on the elderly, but it's for their own protection. This is the only way that we get any kind of domestic economy moving again. If we do not, the health service and social services are banjaxed anyway.....which will be worse for these vulnerable groups in the long run

We will get to May and the economy will start to to have more and more influence in the decision making process

donaghs

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So just push the economy over a cliff? What outcomes do you think the health service will deliver in a depression style environment. We have seen what it delivers in an age of austerity .

I think that’s when we get the: “we are where we are”, “Anger is not a policy”, “we couldn’t have known it could be this bad”, “we all went a bit crazy (in the boom/lockdown)”, “we all have to make sarcifices”, “water (insert any tax) has to be paid for”, “we did nothing wrong it was Lehman brothers/a global covid depression” etc.

Except in an actual depression you get the breadlines, real mass unemployment, and real survival of the fittest/richest when safety nets are removed.

Cupatae

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nope, but there needs to be a balance not an economic wasteland after a lockdown.

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

donaghs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing that must be factored into the equation is that very sick people cannot work. Even if we just let nature/virus take its course this illness will cause a 14 day absence from work in each individual it causes a mild-moderate illness in. Then the more seriously afflicted you get people will likely be out of work up to a month. Considering it’s so infectious that’s a lot of sick people unable to work, even if we were to dispense with lives and overcrowd hospitals, and bring out the body bags and makeshift morgues. That’s a major toll on the economy in itself.

In the 20s/30s healthy group less than 50% probably will have symptoms. And even half of them being sick is still more than telling everyone to stay at home?

Plumbthedepths

Cupatae wrote: »

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

There is no beating it quickly, the lockdown is about flattening the curve but it prolongs it , the longer a lockdown continues the greater the economic damage.Many jobs have already been permanently lost . It is still going to be there in 6/12/18/24 ........months. it's going nowhere.

donaghs

Cupatae wrote: »

I agree, but i think beating/controlling the virus as quick as possible is still the best way to protect the economy, in the long game.

As quick as possible means letting to it spread as quickly as possible. Those you recover get immunity. Hard to stomach the death toll on that. Especially without a healthcare system ready for it.

Cupatae

donaghs wrote: »

In the 20s/30s healthy group less than 50% probably will have symptoms. And even half of them being sick is still more than telling everyone to stay at home?

Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up.

Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.

Cupatae

donaghs wrote: »

As quick as possible means letting to it spread as quickly as possible. Those you recover get immunity. Hard to stomach the death toll on that. Especially without a healthcare system ready for it.

I meant as quick as possible while saving the most at risk, i wouldnt sacrifice people for economy sake.

polesheep

Cupatae wrote: »

Ah a vaccine within a year is happy talk, then u have people the world over demanding it... id say if we have one within 2 we d be doing well.

I think the ultimate goal is management of it, at this stage.. just control the numbers flowing into hospitals but there is alot riding on when the returns to work begin and how.. i imagine it ll be a very different world we ll be returning to we ll have a new definition of "normal"

The ultimate goal is a vaccine and there are scientists right around the globe working on it. A lot of other projects have been put on hold to make way for vaccine research. And if they are successful, we'll go back to normal overnight - bar the recession of course:D

donaghs

Cupatae wrote: »

Who looks after the sick ? when the hospitals get overrun? the healthy 20/30 yr olds are gonna look after who every in there family that is sick, there is no straight forward solution and i dont think there is any outcome now where the economy does take a massive hit its simply a case of buckle up.

Infairness to the government i think they are making the right calls and doing the best they can, i dont think anyone wants a great depression style economy if it can be avoided.

It’s easy for me to be an armchair commentator, but the Govt are taking the easier decisions. The Swedes are sticking their neck out. If the Govt were really serious about stopping covid they could have stopped the early cases coming from northern Italy! But guess what, that was politically difficult.

Plumbthedepths

Cupatae wrote: »

I meant as quick as possible while saving the most at risk, i wouldnt sacrifice people for economy sake.

You will be scarificing people no matter what. The deaths due to the economic devastation will be greater but never acknowledged.