Relaxation of restrictions

KrustyUCC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There's a doc on C4 tonight called The truth about Traveller crime, imagine RTE showing something like that, would never happen

100%

My next neighbours mother died a few days ago non. COVID-19 related

There was 10 at the funeral

I can imagine if 150 turned up to the cemetery that they would have been dispersed before the burial

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

What are your thoughts for the sick and over 70's? Do they have to restrict their movements as well?

Probably, yes. Though would imagine that it be strongly suggested rather than mandatory. No other option given that we can’t place any reliance on a vaccine.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

What are your thoughts for the sick and over 70's? Do they have to restrict their movements as well?

Its their choice. They will know the risks.

Same as if I sit into a car, I know the risks.

KrustyUCC

Ace2007 wrote: »

May 5 is only a day, if we have increase deaths/numbers then the "lock down" will continue - i wouldn't be getting worked up over May 5 being a deadline

January 1st is only a day too I suppose

Up to Midnight May 4th they will have got 54 days of restrictions or 7 weeks 5 days out of people

The lockdown will have been 38 days or 5 weeks three days

Doing really well folks just not well enough

Flattening the curve but not enough

Sure let's give it another two weeks
Then one more to be sure

Rinse and repeat

Death by a thousand cuts

You can't keep the lockdown going indefinitely

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

May 5 is only a day, if we have increase deaths/numbers then the "lock down" will continue - i wouldn't be getting worked up over May 5 being a deadline

If that is the case it was a waste of time in the first place.

There will be a backlash if they don't ease something on May 5th.

No hope of them not relaxing things.

El_Duderino 09

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Travellers and scumbags don't seem to be adhering at all. Inner city Dublin is full of gangs of kids everywhere as if nothing is happening.
I suppose they were never going to comply to anything anyway but we just have to hope the majority does.

Yeah I was chatting with a mate who's a police officer in the UK and he said his job is mostly going around telling people to go home. He said most people are genuine and the only real trouble is from junkies and children and teenagers who never spend any time at home. They have no experience of being at home all the time and the parents have no experience either.

It's frustrating but there are a significant proportion of them that live in abusive households and stay out of the house as much as possible for that reason. It's not always black and white but Travellers were never going to do what they were asked to do. It takes a certain amount of community mindedness and I just don't think Travellers have much community spirit towards settled people. It's just not part of their thinking.

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably, yes. Though would imagine that it be strongly suggested rather than mandatory. No other option given that we can’t place any reliance on a vaccine.

So basically Nermal and other posters are saying they won't stay locked up for the next x months because they want to travel, going to shops etc. BUT it's ok for them to ask that over 70s and the vulnerable to stay inside, because that's for the greater good of the country so that the hospitals don't get over run.

Cyrus

Ace2007 wrote: »

So basically Nermal and other posters are saying they won't stay locked up for the next x months because they want to travel, going to shops etc. BUT it's ok for them to ask that over 70s and the vulnerable to stay inside, because that's for the greater good of the country so that the hospitals don't get over run.

if i was over 70 or vulnerable id be making the decision myself to limit my movements, its called self preservation.

easypazz

Ace2007 wrote: »

So basically Nermal and other posters are saying they won't stay locked up for the next x months because they want to travel, going to shops etc. BUT it's ok for them to ask that over 70s and the vulnerable to stay inside, because that's for the greater good of the country so that the hospitals don't get over run.

You argument is pure stupid.

Lock everybody down because its not fair to ask the old to wait at home on their own.

Speaking of my own parents they would accept that situation and rather wait at home so their grandkids could have a childhood.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

So basically Nermal and other posters are saying they won't stay locked up for the next x months because they want to travel, going to shops etc. BUT it's ok for them to ask that over 70s and the vulnerable to stay inside, because that's for the greater good of the country so that the hospitals don't get over run.

Yes. Correct. Over 70s and vulnerable can of course go out if they want. I don’t see anything being mandatory and enforced. But ‘at risk’ people should be aware of the potential consequences to their health

Bit of course even for those not at risk, there will still be a lot of restrictions for a number of weeks / months

Ace2007

KrustyUCC wrote: »

January 1st is only a day too I suppose

Up to Midnight May 4th they will have got 54 days of restrictions or 7 weeks 5 days out of people

The lockdown will have been 38 days or 5 weeks three days

Doing really well folks just not well enough

Flattening the curve but not enough

Sure let's give it another two weeks
Then one more to be sure

Rinse and repeat

Death by a thousand cuts

You can't keep the lockdown going indefinitely

You can't ask doctors and nurses to work indefinitely either - but that's what your proposing, - another poster wants a tent build outside hospitals, lifting restrictions too early could lead us to being worse than Italy and Spain. And the exact same posters would slate the government if that happens.

You look at restrictions abroad and you look at them here - no wonder are rates are rising - you need to be very naive if you think we are in a restrictive state and "lock down". We have posters on here living in Italy and Spain telling us what it's like in real life over there and how lax the restrictions are here.

But in reality - you don't care about that, you just want to get back to normality - but wait you want the sick, vulnerable, elderly and everyone associated with them to put their lives on hold - so that the hospitals etc don't get overrun.

normanoffside

brick tamland wrote: »

UK possibly due to extend their restrictions for an extra 3weeks apparently. We wont open too much up until the North do too for fear of 1000s of folks coming over the border. Although I suspect the UK government may reduce restriction at a quicker rate when the decide to do so.

The North already extended their restrictions in line with ours yesterday.

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

I am simply not willing to accept a life of only 'essential activity' until a vaccine is developed. To accept not travelling, not going to the gym, pub, restaurants, cinema or sporting events. I am quite sure that I am not alone.

But if we do allow those things, suppression will prove impossible. Half the people with the virus don't have any symptoms at all. The tests routinely give false negatives. Contact tracing will not be effective.

Herd immunity is the only option left after suppression is eliminated.

Sure. The options are about how quickly you achieve herd immunity. The quicker you do it the more overrun the health service will be and the more people will die. The slower you do it the longer it takes but the health service can dedicate care to everyone who needs it.

The balance is to have the maximum number of transmissions that the health service can cope with the acute cases. We're probably talking years for that to take place and have at least 2\3 immunity.

If you're not willing to wait that long then you're proposing overrunning the health service and causing lots more people to die as they won't get the medical care they need. Also they will just triage the vulnerable people and give them minimal or no treatment. So they will just refuse a person based on age or pre-existing condition like diabetes and tell them to go home and take their chances. Are you comfortable with choosing that scenario for yourself an your older or otherwise vulnerable family members?

Serious question that I'd really like you to consider and answer.

Ace2007

Cyrus wrote: »

if i was over 70 or vulnerable id be making the decision myself to limit my movements, its called self preservation.

easypazz wrote: »

You argument is pure stupid.

Lock everybody down because its not fair to ask the old to wait at home on their own.

Speaking of my own parents they would accept that situation and rather wait at home so their grandkids could have a childhood.

Where did i say we should lock everybody down? I replied to a poster who basically said they want to get back to normal.

Let's look at your parents, what happens if one of those was in a nursing home - and they won't be allowed visitors for the next 6+ months, and you weren't allowed bring your children to visit them until the vaccine comes out - would yo be ok with that? Having say your mother alone in the house with no family contact, and your farther in a nursing home away from his loved ones indefinatly?

El_Duderino 09

Augeo wrote: »

There is undoubtedly going to be easing of restrictions. The current regime is unsustainable beyond the 5 week timeline.

Why is this 5 week timeline a magic line in the sand? They can just tweak the restrictions and tweak them back again in a few weeks. Why is this 5 week timeline so important?

Are you suggesting you'd start joining the Travellers and feral inner city children mentioned above, and simply start flouting the laws if they don't change on May 5?

Thelonious Monk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's frustrating but there are a significant proportion of them that live in abusive households and stay out of the house as much as possible for that reason. It's not always black and white but Travellers were never going to do what they were asked to do. It takes a certain amount of community mindedness and I just don't think Travellers have much community spirit towards settled people. It's just not part of their thinking.

Yep I was sent a video of a traveller BBQ from the other day, looked like about 100 people all on top of each other, and the bloke making the video joking about social distancing. They're not the brightest bunch, given their ill health in general, covid could really wipe out a lot of them if it gets in there.
Also the inner city is like nothing has happened at all, street parties etc on Sheriff st, you can see them from my partner's balcony, and gangs of kids roaming the IFSC etc. They're a different breed in town though.

Ace2007

Cyrus wrote: »

if i was over 70 or vulnerable id be making the decision myself to limit my movements, its called self preservation.

For how long?
What if you are living alone - would you continue to have no contact with your family - not meeting them in person etc?

What if you were in your 90's, would you be like i want to live my life and see my friends while i can still can?

Your making huge assumptions about a cohort of the population that you really have no idea.

My point is quite simple, you shouldn't be asking another cohort of the population to do something that you aren't prepared to do yourself. i.e. vulnerable should say in until a vaccine becomes available - be that 6 months or 18, while i get on with my life as i want to go to the pub.

Cyrus

Ace2007 wrote: »

Where did i say we should lock everybody down? I replied to a poster who basically said they want to get back to normal.

Let's look at your parents, what happens if one of those was in a nursing home - and they won't be allowed visitors for the next 6+ months, and you weren't allowed bring your children to visit them until the vaccine comes out - would yo be ok with that? Having say your mother alone in the house with no family contact, and your farther in a nursing home away from his loved ones indefinatly?

if there is a continued lockdown for the next 6+ months it will the same thing, and who knows if there will be a vaccine, waiting on one is naive.

Who said the mother in that scenario cant have contact with family? of course they can, its just risky. its going to be risky regardless, its not like its going to go away!

whats your suggestion?

I'm working in a plant that's deemed essential, it's still open. Maybe 500 on site daily compared to 1500 ish prior to Covid19.

We can see clearly on site how proper implementation of the 2m thing etc can actually work. Most folk on site are doing the shopping and going home to wife/husband/other half/kids and there's been no case of Covid19 on site since the lockdown.

If you've a cold, cough, sniffle etc you don't come in, you'll be told to fook off home fairly lively if you do venture in.

There is plenty that can be done to ease restrictions and get folk back to work without risking an increase in cases. There's going to be a few thousand new cases every week/10 days for the foreseeable future and all going well ICU can cope with that as more ICU spaces come on stream.

I've been within 2m of no one for more than a few minutes at work or shopping since this March 17th ish. GF is working from home and goes for groceries and calls into work maybe once a week.

If essential work can continue and abide by the rules there's plenty non essential stuff that can go on too, folk will need to buy into it though, and I think they will.

Cyrus

Ace2007 wrote: »

For how long?
What if you are living alone - would you continue to have no contact with your family - not meeting them in person etc?

What if you were in your 90's, would you be like i want to live my life and see my friends while i can still can?

Your making huge assumptions about a cohort of the population that you really have no idea.

My point is quite simple, you shouldn't be asking another cohort of the population to do something that you aren't prepared to do yourself. i.e. vulnerable should say in until a vaccine becomes available - be that 6 months or 18, while i get on with my life as i want to go to the pub.

im not sure what point you are trying to make here, either we are all in lockdown in which case they are in the same scenario, or there is lifting of restrictions but those at risk are advised to take precautions to protect themselves.

There isnt really another alternative, no matter what we do, unless we completely close our borders, we cant eradicate the virus, so there will be a risk.

El_Duderino 09

Downlinz wrote: »

The majority will only be infected if we do absolutely nothing to mitigate it. China and South Korea are down to single digit numbers of cases per day with only a minuscule portion of their population infected.

Didn't they take a very different approach from the beginning? Massive testing and tracing? the toothpaste is out of the tube in Ireland.

It's funny that some people are calling for relaxation of restrictions, opening pubs etc. which will obviously lead to increased transmissions, and others are pretending we can get transmissions down to S. Korea levels even though we're not doing the things S. Korea did.

It's all just wishful thinking. If you take an objective look at what's happening, then you'll see that this is a long term project. The 5 May is probably within the first 10% of the duration of this thing considering it started in March

Wibbs

From what I can see, here in Dublin suburbia anyway, restrictions are a lot less tight than even a few days ago. Traffic is way up, not too far off normal, minus a rush hour peak. Builders vans are back in and out of a few neighbours going for the let's change the entire facade of the gaff route.

Idbatterim

Ace2007 wrote: »

For how long?
What if you are living alone - would you continue to have no contact with your family - not meeting them in person etc?

What if you were in your 90's, would you be like i want to live my life and see my friends while i can still can?

Your making huge assumptions about a cohort of the population that you really have no idea.

My point is quite simple, you shouldn't be asking another cohort of the population to do something that you aren't prepared to do yourself. i.e. vulnerable should say in until a vaccine becomes available - be that 6 months or 18, while i get on with my life as i want to go to the pub.

What bull**** are you talking about ? We should all be locked up to make it " fair" should we , the older people likely don't have job concerns , debt concerns, or a house full of screaming kids, is that " fair" cut the bull****. They wouldn't be doing anything different to what we are all currently doing

Of course the family can still call around , meet outside and keep distance, imagine that ...

seamus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do we at any point remove restrictions, go back to normal life with distancing, and allow the virus to spread and the health service become overrun?

Your implication here is that even with distancing measures, the health system will become overrun.

We are where are now though not because distancing was ineffective, but because the virus already had a very strong foothold before we even put distancing measures in place.

When it comes to relaxing restrictions, it's apples and oranges. The health system is different from its state on March 12th. Different in capacity, different in procedure, different in staff allocation.
Society is different. Understanding is different, attitudes are different.

So the short answer is that we don't know just how effective distancing may or may not be in the medium-term, based on our reconfigured society.

While people have been erroneously pointing to Sweden as an example of a country surviving without a lockdown, Sweden has shown that distancing can be effective in a limited fashion.

It seems likely that allowing the virus to spread in a limited fashion is feasible, provided that the transmission rate can be kept down (probably 1.2 or lower) *AND* vulnerable groups are protected.

We know that the vast majority of hospitalisations are vulnerable groups. So it seems logical that any relaxation of restrictions will need to include measures to limit their exposure.
Higher transmission rates amongst the rest of the population may then be OK. Hospitalisation rates in general are about 9% of infections based on global numbers. Which only takes into account people actually tested. So the true hospitalisation rate might be significantly less again.

If you remove the over 70s and people with underlying conditions, that hospitalisation rate drops to about 0.5%. Of which about a third will end up in ICU.

The question is whether we have hospital capacity for that. I don't know, but optimistic bad numbers I'm running here, say that we do. So long as we can keep vulnerable groups protected.

Ace2007

Cyrus wrote: »

im not sure what point you are trying to make here, either we are all in lockdown in which case they are in the same scenario, or there is lifting of restrictions but those at risk are advised to take precautions to protect themselves.

There isnt really another alternative, no matter what we do, unless we completely close our borders, we cant eradicate the virus, so there will be a risk.

What i'm suggesting is that everyone should be treated equally - so you lift restrictions gradually in a way that everyone can live a less restrictive life.

What i read on here, is that we lift restrictions so that the "healthy" can get back to normal, while the vulnerable continue to isolate and wait for a vaccine.

I read a poster for instance suggesting that pubs do a over 70's time in the day - like Tesco have - that's thinking positively - including everyone in society.

Idbatterim

easypazz wrote: »

If that is the case it was a waste of time in the first place.

There will be a backlash if they don't ease something on May 5th.

No hope of them not relaxing things.

The fifth of may , why pull that date out of their ass? building and building suppliers etc, the entire industry supporting several hundred thousand jobs, should he reopened tomorrow, its lunacy!

El_Duderino 09

KrustyUCC wrote: »

January 1st is only a day too I suppose

Up to Midnight May 4th they will have got 54 days of restrictions or 7 weeks 5 days out of people

The lockdown will have been 38 days or 5 weeks three days

Doing really well folks just not well enough

Flattening the curve but not enough

Sure let's give it another two weeks
Then one more to be sure

Rinse and repeat

Death by a thousand cuts

You can't keep the lockdown going indefinitely

You're dead right up until the last line. That's exactly how it will continue until something drastically changes in either a vaccine or a antibody test or we reach herd immunity.

They can keep the updates coming every 2 or 3 weeks and fiddle around the edges like saying that "manufacturing jobs are now deemed essential". But they will do exactly what you've suggested above and it can go on indefinitely.

Ace2007

Idbatterim wrote: »

The fifth of may , why pull that date out of their ass? building and building suppliers etc, the entire industry supporting several hundred thousand jobs, should he reopened tomorrow, its lunacy!

Quite obvious they picked the day after the bank holiday to avoid people flooding holiday homes etc.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

From what I can see, here in Dublin suburbia anyway, restrictions are a lot less tight than even a few days ago...........

I live in a village in Kildare (not quite Dulchieland), I noticed the same as you but AGS set up a checkpoint on the main street on Easter Sunday and yesterday evening they had one on what's effectively a ring road / village bypass at maybe 7pm. It wasn't there when I went home from work but was there when we went out for a run.

Restrictions are still there, adherence is slipping.

Cyrus

Ace2007 wrote: »

What i'm suggesting is that everyone should be treated equally - so you lift restrictions gradually in a way that everyone can live a less restrictive life.

What i read on here, is that we lift restrictions so that the "healthy" can get back to normal, while the vulnerable continue to isolate and wait for a vaccine.

I read a poster for instance suggesting that pubs do a over 70's time in the day - like Tesco have - that's thinking positively - including everyone in society.

everyone cant be treated equally, i mean in theory they can but if you are at risk and the virus is still around you are probably going to take extra precautions, what else can you do.

and for the record i dont goto the pub so them reopening makes no difference to me