Relaxation of restrictions

seamus

stephenjmcd wrote: »

There seems to be more of a common theme now coming from the WHO and other governments that we can't live in this paralysed state while waiting for a vaccine that may or may not come and might not even work.
The WHO themselves yesterday even said people will eventually have to live alongside the virus and take responsibility when it comes to personal hygiene.

If anyone listens to the doctor from the WHO on rte radio yesterday he even mentioned that a social life, restaurants, bars, events etc will have to resume but if you feel unwell to stay home.

For what it's worth I think we'll see a gradual lifting of restrictions from May right through until late July or August when the vast majority of places will be reopened.

This my feeling too. We will develop a social stigma about sickness. In the same way that we'd never consider going to a social gathering with dirty clothes and stinking to high heaven, we will stay at home if we feel at all unwell.

And likewise people who do wander around in public blowing their nose, coughing and spluttering will be treated with disdain and given a wide berth like someone with BO.

We've all done it in the past, gone out with a bit of a cold, visited parents and relations even though we know we're not feeling the best. That will all come to an end, and we'll start to cop on and actually just take to bed for a few days until it's passed.

brutes1

BanditLuke wrote: »

Then you will be putting peoples lives at risk. Support the HSE.

Thats the simple answer and apparently the best way. Is it working though?


Since social distancing and lockdown the deaths and cases have gone up everyday . Why?? Why so many die in healthcare settings and is this being managed?


Build a bit of immunity let people out and get the HSE and health services to monitor and protect those deemed at risk

Over 70s need to be let out if they want and not treated like prisoners. Even jailbirds get exercise hours.

Young people need to get out be educated and meet friends and form relationships and have families

hopefully some of our politicians will stand up and be counted and take some action to ensure our youth and elderly have a future outside of home confinement. And people can get back to work and doing things

khalessi

seamus wrote: »

This my feeling too. We will develop a social stigma about sickness. In the same way that we'd never consider going to a social gathering with dirty clothes and stinking to high heaven, we will stay at home if we feel at all unwell.

And likewise people who do wander around in public blowing their nose, coughing and spluttering will be treated with disdain and given a wide berth like someone with BO.

We've all done it in the past, gone out with a bit of a cold, visited parents and relations even though we know we're not feeling the best. That will all come to an end, and we'll start to cop on and actually just take to bed for a few days until it's passed.

Unless we are back to work and we cant afford to take sick leave as they will dock the pay etc

Cyrus

easypazz wrote: »

There are a lot of people dying, so I don't think we can argue with them on that.

Our outbreak was more likely Cheltenham and flights to Northern Italy for the ski season, from what I have seen.

what isnt clear is how many people are dying incrementally.

a lot of people die every day, Covid19 or not.

The reporting is deliberately obfuscating

facehugger99

KiKi III wrote: »

Per your corrections, 15,000 deaths and 1,500 of them in young people over the next two years.

Not as dramatic as my original miscalculation but still certainly not acceptable in a country the size of ours.

Over 60,000 people will die in Ireland naturally over 2 years - how many of your 15,000 deaths will be part of these deaths anyway.

A huge amount given the demographics of the deaths at present I'd suggest.

normanoffside

seamus wrote: »

That would be like closing Drogheda for 10 weeks.

Not a bad idea.

Cork Boy 53

seamus wrote: »

This my feeling too. We will develop a social stigma about sickness. In the same way that we'd never consider going to a social gathering with dirty clothes and stinking to high heaven, we will stay at home if we feel at all unwell.

And likewise people who do wander around in public blowing their nose, coughing and spluttering will be treated with disdain and given a wide berth like someone with BO.

We've all done it in the past, gone out with a bit of a cold, visited parents and relations even though we know we're not feeling the best. That will all come to an end, and we'll start to cop on and actually just take to bed for a few days until it's passed.

Take to bed for a few days from what exactly? A head cold? I can see employers having something to say about that if employees decide to take time off work for that reason.

seamus

thebaz wrote: »

can some one tell me why the number of deaths is not soaring in the developing world ??
I would have expected a disaster by now in those countrys, and yet it hasnt happened (thankfully)

It's complicated. Population density is an issue, but so too is access to healthcare and maintenance of records. Very poor countries could see soaring death rates, but unless there's a central medical authority and a process for diagnosing, reporting and collating Covid deaths, then the numbers won't be reported.

There are other factors too. This is very much a wealthy country problem. Obesity is a comorbid with acute covid in something like 75% of cases.
And we know age is a factor.

Old people and obese people are in far less supply in the developing world. Which means that rather ironically countries which are generally poor, have a population at lower risk.

This doesn't mean poor people are at less risk. Quite the opposite. Poor people in wealthy countries are at far higher risk because we know they tend to be obese and engage in other unhealthy lifestyles compared to wealthier people.

skallywag

KiKi III wrote: »

What are you basing your opinion on? Because I haven’t heard a single person with qualifications in the field express your view?

If that view was taken in the past we’d still be living with small pox and polio.

I think the point is valid though, there might never be an effective vaccine, we need to accept that.

There are plenty of deadly diseases (many more horrific than covid19) which have no vaccine at all, think Ebola, Rabies, HIV ...

The chances are positive in that covid19 seems to be a close cousin to SARS-CoV-1 which popped up in 2003, and to which a vaccine was found (but never used) ca 18 months later.

Coronaviruss though are notorious for changing and mutating (think the common cold and how many times you catch it ...) so even as soon as a vaccine did appear, then it would be pretty worthless before long, and there would need to be a constant rework of it to counter any mutation, etc.

Loafing Oaf

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No I don't. Vulnerable people who can't cocoon would be more likely to get it and more likely to experience acute symptoms and more likely to die - similar to how they are right now if they're living with family or can't cocoon for whatever reason.

But the difference now is only a small proportion of the family members of the vulnerable actually have the virus, and you're proposing these people should actively seek to become infected to achieve 'herd immunity'. So what happens to the vulnerable family members they are living with in that scenario? Do they just have to take their chances?

seamus

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Take to bed for a few days from what exactly? A head cold? I can see employers having something to say about that if employees decide to take time off work for that reason.

Employers won't have a choice. Forcing a sick employee to come to work will be made a very serious offence.

Clonmel1000

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

It’s hard to know really when this semi lockdown will be lifted.

From listening to the experts at daily briefings they want it to continue indefinitely.

People are going around with absolute fear, people crossing the road to pass other people, older people afraid to even go out in their own back gardens.

It’s been so much in the media now for the last 5 weeks it’s got people terrified and unable to comprehend that if the main points are adhered to -wash hands,social distancing etc life can go on.

It’s a deadly virus to certain people in society and it’s not as serious to others but the fear has people believing if they get it that’s it for them.

We can’t exist like this living in fear for the foreseeable future.

Great post.

CtevenSrowder

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the difference now is only a small proportion of the family members of the vulnerable actually have the virus, and you're proposing these people should actively seek to become infected to achieve 'herd immunity'. So what happens to the vulnerable family members they are living with in that scenario? Do they just have to take their chances?

Nobody is saying people should "actively seek" to become infected.

El_Duderino 09

KiKi III wrote: »

What are you basing your opinion on? Because I haven’t heard a single person with qualifications in the field express your view?

If that view was taken in the past we’d still be living with small pox and polio.

But they eventually developed vacancies for small pox and polio. If they hadn't developed a vaccine, then they would have simply caught it until the population which remains is immune.

In 2020 we can have a lot more control over things like the rate of transmission and the impact of restrictions.

You haven't said what you actually think is happening. Do you think we're simply trying to minimise transmissions and plan to stay in lockdown for 1/2/5/10 years until a vaccine is found?

I've told you what I see happening, what do you think is the plan?

Stateofyou

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, but if they recommend that I have all my teeth removed because I have one cavity I wouldn't just "defer" to the experts. The situation we have now isn't scientifically black and white. Experts are there to guide policy, not make it. You've also got to bear in mind that the CMO may not be thinking of the country as a whole, but more so within his area (as expected). The government has to do the former.

Sorry but that analogy is dumber than dumb. A Dentist, an expert trained in oral health, is not going to remove all your teeth because you have one cavity. The black and white thinking here is yours. :rolleyes:

CtevenSrowder

Stateofyou wrote: »

Sorry but that analogy is dumber than dumb. A Dentist, an expert trained in oral health, is not going to remove all your teeth because you have one cavity. The black and white thinking here is yours. :rolleyes:

It wasn't my anology. I just added to it. Regardless what I said is not dumb. The point is just because someone is an expert it doesn't mean they should automatically be deferred to and not questioned.

Kiki has been asked to outline what she would do in the future and she has refused to, saying she'd defer to the experts, this ofcourse before she even knows what those experts intend to do. That is following blindly.

El_Duderino 09

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the difference now is only a small proportion of the family members of the vulnerable actually have the virus, and you're proposing these people should actively seek to become infected to achieve 'herd immunity'. So what happens to the vulnerable family members they are living with in that scenario? Do they just have to take their chances?

I didn't say anyone should actively seek to get infected - where did you get that idea from?

Anyway, we all have to take our chances. If someone lives with a vulnerable person, then they should take that into consideration. But to be fair, if you live with a vulnerable person who should be cocooning, then the whole family unit needs to cocoon to stop the virus entering the house.

The options are to hunker down as we are until a vaccination is available in 1/2/5/10 years or for ever if a vaccination never becomes available. Or we could use restrictions to achieve herd Immunity over the next few years - balancing transmission to e sure the health service can cope with acute cases.

In either scenario were talking years, not weeks or months.

Stateofyou

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It wasn't my anology. I just added to it. Regardless what I said is not dumb. The point is just because someone is an expert it doesn't mean they should automatically be deferred to and not questioned.

The scenario of a dentist pulling all your teeth due to one cavity is an example beyond logical thinking.
I believe these experts and gov't leaders are questioned by journalists on the REGULAR.

CtevenSrowder

Stateofyou wrote: »

The scenario of a dentist pulling all your teeth due to one cavity is an example beyond logical thinking.
I believe these experts and gov't leaders are questioned by journalists on the REGULAR.

Yes, it is absurd, intentionally so, to drive home why experts shouldn't be automatically defered to, and why one should question and think for themselves.

thebaz

seamus wrote: »

It's complicated. Population density is an issue, but so too is access to healthcare and maintenance of records.

Most developing countrys urban areas are very dense, I've visited a few , and I thought by now the virus would have decmated some of these countrys . Thankfully has not happened , good point about obesity, aparently obesity is as bad as smoking to people , but is not reported as a reason when outling daily figures, I assume out of respect.

Cork Boy 53

seamus wrote: »

Employers won't have a choice. Forcing a sick employee to come to work will be made a very serious offence.

That would be wide open to abuse including people with just a runny nose or a mild headache who could claim they were incapacitated. I know that happens as it is but those who abuse the current system would just feel empowered to do it more often.

Loafing Oaf

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But to be fair, if you live with a vulnerable person who should be cocooning, then the whole family unit needs to cocoon to stop the virus entering the house.

Okay but that effectively means lockdown carries on for a large proportion of the population: kids can't go to school, young adults can't go out to work, no visiting friends/relatives etc.

Stateofyou

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, it is absurd, intentionally so, to drive home why experts shouldn't be automatically defered to, and why one should question and think for themselves.

Literally no one is doing that. Everyone here is capable of and do think for themselves. Give over.

easypazz

Cyrus wrote: »

what isnt clear is how many people are dying incrementally.

a lot of people die every day, Covid19 or not.

The reporting is deliberately obfuscating

facehugger99 wrote: »

Over 60,000 people will die in Ireland naturally over 2 years - how many of your 15,000 deaths will be part of these deaths anyway.

A huge amount given the demographics of the deaths at present I'd suggest.

We also don't know the condition of the people who have died, many of them were in nursing homes.

I am sure the words "it was an ease to him / her" are being muttering during a lot of these bereavements.

I've seen people waste in nursing homes for years, not pretty at all.

It doesn't suit the "one death is too many" brigade around here though.

castletownman

seamus wrote: »

This my feeling too. We will develop a social stigma about sickness. In the same way that we'd never consider going to a social gathering with dirty clothes and stinking to high heaven, we will stay at home if we feel at all unwell.

And likewise people who do wander around in public blowing their nose, coughing and spluttering will be treated with disdain and given a wide berth like someone with BO.

We've all done it in the past, gone out with a bit of a cold, visited parents and relations even though we know we're not feeling the best. That will all come to an end, and we'll start to cop on and actually just take to bed for a few days until it's passed.

Agree 100%. Tried to articulate a similar point in a sleepy state last night.

If we are treated like adults, where all we can do is make sure we wash our hands etc. and sneeze and cough the correct way in public, then I don't see how we can be essentially on house arrest for the foreseeable future.

Going to nursing homes and hospitals prior to Covid-19, you had to sanitise your hands on entry. Why can't they roll that out for every public building now? Why can't they insist that those with underlying medical conditions (publish a definitive list of the conditions at risk to avoid confusion and worry) that have to work and can't self-isolate indefinitely must wear a mark and gloves? Otherwise, stay at home until its safe to do so.

And as you mentioned, if you are feeling unwell with symptoms similar to Covid, stay the eff at home too. Make it mandatory for employers to provide sick pay in that scenario.

Its the majority of the general population that needs to be considered.

CtevenSrowder

Stateofyou wrote: »

Literally no one is doing that. Everyone here is capable of and do think for themselves. Give over.

Have you been following the thread? Kiki when asked what she'd do in the future said she's defer to the experts. She doesn't yet know what the experts propose to do. That is blindly following. So literally she is doing that.

Stateofyou

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Have you been following the thread? Kiki when asked what she'd do in the future said she's defer to the experts. She doesn't yet know what the experts propose to do. That is blindly following. So literally she is doing that.

Just because Kiki, along with myself and MILLIONS of others who are thinking for ourselves and agreeing to comply and have decided to trust the experts guiding us because it makes sense to us, is not in any sense of the word BLINDLY following. It's now literally, the law. You are blindly choosing to not defer to experts who know better than you. See how that works?

stephenjmcd

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/lockdowns-should-be-lifted-in-two-week-stages-to-stem-covid-19-spread-who-39129741.html

Latest WHO guidance, EU issued something similar this morning also.

Lots of realisation that nations have done relatively well to slow the spread and use the time to build capacity but that these restrictions just isn't feasible now long term.

Spencer Brown

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

That would be wide open to abuse including people with just a runny nose or a mild headache who could claim they were incapacitated. I know that happens as it is but those who abuse the current system would just feel empowered to do it more often.

Why do we expect the worst of people? I think u'll find that the vast majority of people would be honest enough to call in sick when actually sick and not abuse the system. My employer pays sick pay and absences are infrequent.

CtevenSrowder

Stateofyou wrote: »

Just because Kiki, along with myself and MILLIONS of others who are thinking for ourselves and agreeing to comply and have decided to trust the experts guiding us because it makes sense to us, is not in any sense of the word BLINDLY following. It's now literally, the law. You are blindly choosing to not defer to experts who know better than you. See how that works?

You've completely missed the point of what's gone on.