Relaxation of restrictions

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So 2.3% of people under 60 who contract coronavirus die from it. That means today that 264 people under 60 have died or will die of coronavirus.

2.3% is not "many" and 60 is not "young".

At the time of writing, today's worldwide deathtoll is 1470, so totday's total is currently about 32/33. Yesterday about 150. Not that many compared to numbers over 60.

The total number of in Ireland, should the statistic be concistent, would therefore be 9. From a population of five million. So again, not something people under 60 would panic about as it's more than 500,000 to 1 chance of dying of cornoavirus if you're under 60.

And again - that's assuming that they all - as you put it , young AND healthy - which is very unlikley ot be the case.

Claim statistically debunked

Weller81

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How do ventilators cause damage?

They cause scar tissue in the lungs leaving less usable areas available for the exchange of gases.

Premature babies usually develop chronic lung disease, this isn't a condition of prematurity as such but as a result of the damage done by vents that are required to assist breathing.

lainey_d_123

khalessi wrote: »

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

CtevenSrowder

youandme13 wrote: »

An 18 yo died in England and a 12 yo girl died in America..

No ones denying that young people can die from it. The claim was that "many healthy" young people do. This is pertainly not true. I suggest we move on.

Squeaksoutloud

Also those percentages of people you are quoting are only in confirmed cases. We know from research that you can multiply confirmed numbers by a doctor of 15-20 to estimate real number of cases out there.

Imperial College Report, testing in particular town in Italy, Iceland testing, Madrid figures and latest from NY regarding 80% asymptomatic in pregnant women attending a particular hospital...note this will be less as follow up was only within 3 days.

Idbatterim

youandme13 wrote: »

An 18 yo died in England and a 12 yo girl died in America..

we know that a tiny tiny percent of younger people can die from getting it!

lainey_d_123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I use 60 as it is the HSE guideline for being at risk as over 60 is considered an age risk. That's why I said young and healthy people will die from Cironavirus and will be left with long term heart and lung problems.

But what do we do about it? Most of us are going to get it eventually, whatever happens. We can't stay indoors for two years. It's simply impossible.

khalessi wrote: »

I was watching a video on either the NY Times or Washington post where doctors were discussing the damage ventilators were doing to hearts and lungs. It is also known that Covid damges the heart if you get it bad enough

Re percetage of deaths of young people even 1 is too many especially if it is the 1 from your family

Ridiculous, emotional claptrap. I lost a close and dear relative in a traffic accident a few years back, so should we ban all cars? Hundreds of people die in road accidents every year, and yet we accept that the reward is generally greater than the risk. I lost a friend in a freak rugby accident a while back too - should we ban sports? No, of course not. Yet you think we should shut down the entire country for months or years on end, causing untold hardship, mental and physical harm and deaths because 'one death from covid is too many'?

castletownman

khalessi wrote: »

So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home

It will be a large part of the population

Well definitely they should be told to avoid socialising, be it going to matches, night-clubbing, a concert or wherever else they are likely to be among a throng of people. Until it is safe to do so of course. Common sense really.

It's like someone who is allergic to nuts. Wouldn't it be foolish of them to horse into a packet of peanuts if they are hungry? Or a fella who has just had heart surgery-be wise not to smoke that 20 pack of fags every day now.

Your health is better than your wealth and all that.

alwald

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

Downlinz

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I have one of those conditions myself, and while I haven't been told I'm 'extremely vulnerable', if I were asked to cocoon, then I'd have to, wouldn't I?Why on earth would I want everyone else to have to do the same? I'd want everyone who could get outside to do so, to keep the economy going and keep funding the health service.

This mentality that it's not 'fair' to ask vulnerable people to cocoon themselves while nobody else has to is so childish, it's laughable. It's literally something a five-year-old would say.

If you ask everybody to cocoon who either has one of those conditions or lives with someone who has a condition or someone over 70 then you're going to have an incredibly fractured society.

There's nearly half a million with Asthma alone according to this: https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/hl/living/asthma/aboutasthma/
Multiply that by 2 or 3 for those living with them and you've lost nearly half the workforce on just one condition.

alwald

alwald wrote: »

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

Except that no one is suggesting that there be no restrictions. Life will be different. But the ICU is there to be used

JoeExotic81

Downlinz wrote: »

The virus is around 5 months old at this stage and thousands of infectious disease researchers and medical professionals have observed it and its characteristics enough to make recommendations.
To say we know nothing or that it's an "utter guessing game" on the grounds of not knowing absolutely everything about it is being willfully ignorant.

Also remember that containment strategies are chosen by political leaders, medical experts can only advise. Many of the most outlandish "strategies" like in Belarus or Brazil are not medically approved.

I'm specifically talking about restrictions, not the virus. It's a complete guessing game in that respect. Nobody knows the long term ramifications of this "better safe than sorry" approach we seem to be taking.

Over half the planet is in lockdown. It's unprecedented. The effects of this lockdown could yet outweigh the effects of the virus itself.

I just welcome the debate on these restrictions.

A lot of people in this thread seem like they'd be happier living in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Question nothing, do as you're told, indefinitely.

CtevenSrowder

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Ridiculous, emotional claptrap. I lost a close and dear relative in a traffic accident a few years back, so should we ban all cars? Hundreds of people die in road accidents every year, and yet we accept that the reward is generally greater than the risk. I lost a friend in a freak rugby accident a while back too - should we ban sports? No, of course not. Yet you think we should shut down the entire country for months or years on end, causing untold hardship, mental and physical harm and deaths because 'one death from covid is too many'?

To be fair she's had the banning car analogy thrown at her 3 times at this stage.

lainey_d_123

alwald wrote: »

Its laughable and sad that up to this stage some still don't understand that all the population is vulnerable to catch the virus if no restrictions are in place which will overwhelm the hospitals and lead to more deaths in all age groups.

Everyone understands that. Nobody is saying that no restrictions should be in place. People are saying that we cannot be in lockdown indefinitely, and it will need to be lifted soon, with a return to something close to 'normality' long before any vaccine is found.

It's laughable and sad that you don't understand that the effects of a ruined economy will be many times worse than the effects of the virus. The people worrying about what MIGHT happen if this virus turns out to cause permanent lung damage would be better off thinking instead about what WILL happen if the economy crashes. No need to worry about your lungs if you'll be dead of starvation or stabbed to death for your wallet.

alwald

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except that no one is suggesting that there be no restrictions. Life will be different. But the ICU is there to be used

That particular poster said that he wants everyone who could go outside to do so which entails that there are no restrictions in place.

ICU are there to be used the same as restrictions are there to be used to save lives.

easypazz

Its good to see the general sentiment on this thread is now leaning towards accepting the we have to begin to ease restrictions, learn to live with this thing and accept that there will be some dark days along the way.

lainey_d_123

Downlinz wrote: »

If you ask everybody to cocoon who either has one of those conditions or lives with someone who has a condition or someone over 70 then you're going to have an incredibly fractured society.

There's nearly half a million with Asthma alone according to this: https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/hl/living/asthma/aboutasthma/
Multiply that by 2 or 3 for those living with them and you've lost nearly half the workforce on just one condition.

And what's the solution, then? Everyone stay inside indefinitely? A lot of those people are likely to be able to work from home, at least in the short term, and government subsidies could help those who can't. Still far better than nobody being able to work.

Loafing Oaf

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

better off thinking instead about what WILL happen if the economy crashes. No need to worry about your lungs if you'll be dead of starvation or stabbed to death for your wallet.

So one of these things will happen to me if the economy crashes. Useful to know...

alwald

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's laughable and sad that you don't understand that the effects of a ruined economy will be many times worse than the effects of the virus. The people worrying about what MIGHT happen if this virus turns out to cause permanent lung damage would be better off thinking instead about what WILL happen if the economy crashes. No need to worry about your lungs if you'll be dead of starvation or stabbed to death for your wallet.

First, we don't know the effect on our economy as the EU/ECB will use various tools to tackle the economic issues. All we have now are forecasts on the economy for the next 2 years which don't take into account the various measures that will be put in place.
Second, you overdramatise everything by mentioning stabbing and starvation so allow to dramatise too, people will be stabbing commuters who cough in fear of catching the virus.
Third, why should people risk to be infected, and potentially die to save an economy that they might not benefit from if they die?

lainey_d_123

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So one of these things will happen to me if the economy crashes. Useful to know...

If it's bad enough and long enough, yes. Go take a look at what's happening in Venezuela if you think the 'economy' is all about shiny investment banks and spreadsheets.

khalessi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you think this thing is going to be over in a couple of weeks so we can permanently lift restrictions in june, then I’m genuinely jealous of your naïveté.

Vulnerable people and those they live with are going to be cocooning until herd immunity is achieved either through a vaccine or people surviving the disease. Neither of those things is happening by June

There is a reason I said review in June. I know how long this will take and it isnt a short fix.

Downlinz

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

And what's the solution, then? Everyone stay inside indefinitely? A lot of those people are likely to be able to work from home, at least in the short term, and government subsidies could help those who can't. Still far better than nobody being able to work.

80% of people are working now either through being essential or from home, the rest have the government support you mentioned. This strategy is fine and they'll gradually test the waters on easing restrictions when it makes sense to do so (low cases + quick testing).

If the gradual easing leads to another surge than sitting out the 10 months or whatever at home is my preference to the alternative.

Tell me how

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

If it's bad enough and long enough, yes. Go take a look at what's happening in Venezuela if you think the 'economy' is all about shiny investment banks and spreadsheets.

Venezuela is a political crisis which is impacting on social and economic norms.

Thankfully, most countries are a long way from such scenarios in spite of some (not you) who seem to hope that things will go that way.

Professor Moriarty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No ones denying that young people can die from it. The claim was that "many healthy" young people do. This is pertainly not true. I suggest we move on.

Au contraire. We have only begun to deal with this. As the number of infections increase, regardless of containment measures so will deaths. It is likely to rebound and is likely to be seasonal. Sure the numbers of deaths amongst healthy young people will be small in statistical terms but in absolute terms it will be significant. Ditto the heart and health damage done to some who survive severe Covid-19.

never_mind

easypazz wrote: »

Its good to see the general sentiment on this thread is now leaning towards accepting the we have to begin to ease restrictions, learn to live with this thing and accept that there will be some dark days along the way.

It's also what WHO and the EU are basically saying. This will only go on for another 2-3 weeks and I see a 'return to normal' by late June/early July. We are just going to have to be ok taking selfies with masks on, guys xoxo

El_Duderino 09

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's a good analysis here. In terms of cases of young people dying, it would seem to be about 2% for those under 60 (those considered not at risk due to age). For example, 1/250 people in their 40s who got the virus died from it. Of course you have to factor in prexeisting conditions.

Yeah, but when people are hospitalised and don't die, they can have very serious and permanent heart and lung damage.

Yeah but we have no idea how many people have got it because we only test people who almost certainly have it. The rest is educated guesswork. We won't know how many people have had it until we can test for that. And then we can calculate the death rate accurately

Nermal

Squeaksoutloud wrote: »

Also those percentages of people you are quoting are only in confirmed cases. We know from research that you can multiply confirmed numbers by a doctor of 15-20 to estimate real number of cases out there.

Imperial College Report, testing in particular town in Italy, Iceland testing, Madrid figures and latest from NY regarding 80% asymptomatic in pregnant women attending a particular hospital...note this will be less as follow up was only within 3 days.

You're better off just blocking anyone quoting fatality rates based on confirmed cases.

easypazz wrote: »

Its good to see the general sentiment on this thread is now leaning towards accepting the we have to begin to ease restrictions, learn to live with this thing and accept that there will be some dark days along the way.

In a month's time it will be 'the restrictions we implemented were too extreme'.

In six months it will be 'I never thought restrictions were a good idea anyway'.

Paddygreen

JoeExotic81 wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about restrictions, not the virus. It's a complete guessing game in that respect. Nobody knows the long term ramifications of this "better safe than sorry" approach we seem to be taking.

Over half the planet is in lockdown. It's unprecedented. The effects of this lockdown could yet outweigh the effects of the virus itself.

I just welcome the debate on these restrictions.

A lot of people in this thread seem like they'd be happier living in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Question nothing, do as you're told, indefinitely.

Have you not been listening to Bill Gates? Restrictions most likely will have to stay in place until the New Year at least, when his mates make a vaccine. He really cares about us and he and his mates warned us of this exact scenario a month before the first reported cases in good old China (great bunch of lads and the example we should follow according to our experts). The time to come down hard on those whose opinion differs from the "New normal" is near.

Professor Moriarty

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

But what do we do about it? Most of us are going to get it eventually, whatever happens. We can't stay indoors for two years. It's simply impossible.

No we can't. Even Italy and Spain are looking to ease restrictions though many in their health services are arguing against such a move. Personally, I would wait and see what impact easing of restrictions in countries somewhat similar to Ireland,i.e. EU, has on infection rates. The worst possible scenario is a rebound effect not least because it will be very difficult to get people to accept containment measures again if they have been lifted.

Huntergonzo

I done 16km of walking outside yesterday. It's important for people to keep active in all of this, while also doing so responsibly.

The negative effects of lockdown and isolation are really going to start to get to people over the next few weeks and we should try to ease that as much as possible.