Relaxation of restrictions

Roberto_gas

Looking at today's map released and showing its widespread and not in pockets, relaxation might be a long way away !

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

I'm not trying to win anything, I'm posting what the official guidance was.
Folk seem to reckon it was something different to what it actually was.

If the WHO admit that masks are useful in protecting others when you're sick, and that people in clinical settings can get protection from them, then how do those same masks suddenly turn useless when the general public (who may or may not be infected) wear them?

Are they magic masks?

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

And your attitude appears to be like others, forget about the sick and elderly and let the rest of us get on with our lives,

Healthcare workers in this country are dying from this virus, yet those in nursing homes settings are not being brought to hospitals. The stats released daily show the age groups of those in hospitals and a large % are under 65, i.e. those who should be working - by opening up the country in full as many posters want your going to increase the numbers under 65 who will get the virus and in turn end up needing hospital treatment, which in turn leads to greater risks for the healthcare workers - but who cares, if it means the economy gets back on its feet?

My attitude, and I have been very consistent with it, is that the sick and the elderly should have been looked after first. But you would not be prepared to have them singled out for special attention as you want to have "everyone treated equally."

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly you didn't read my post and link to the current HSE advice. Wearing a mask is unlikely to be of any benefit if you are not sick.

Unless you just want to uselessly argue petty semantics that's telling people not to bother as they're "unlikely to be of any benefit". But again are a benefit in a clinical setting.

I honestly think you are the one being petty, it's all there in black and white.

There's a shortage of surgical masks, they are needed for hospital staff so the public don't wear them. That was always the spiel.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

If the WHO admit that masks are useful in protecting others when you're sick, and that people in clinical settings can get protection from them, then how do those same masks suddenly turn useless when the general public (who may or may not be infected) wear them?

Are they magic masks?

A 3rd of confirmed cases of Covid19 in Ireland are health workers.

No one said surgical masks are useless, they are no doubt not the magic mask that you think they are though. Who said they are useless? when was that said. Quote or link please instead of using "they" and other vagueness.

Wibbs

Augeo wrote: »

Wearing a non surgical mask won't reduce your chance of catching Covid19, regardless of your happiness level.
But that does highlight a point, folk wearing non surgical masks feel they are protected when they actually aren't and are more likely to not follow the 2m guidance etc etc etc.

And now we're arguing over the type of mask. You do understand the concept of risk reduction I presume? HSE advice is to cough into a hanky and if you don't have one, cough into the crook of your arm to reduce the risk of spreading this virus, but a hanky strapped to your face covering your nose and mouth apparently does nada? In very basic order of declining risk, PP3 filters, PP2, surgical masks, homemade masks, nothing. Even a single layer of a homemade cotton mask will reduce large particle spread, which will reduce risk.

It's getting pretty ridiculous now, but I would be largely in agreement with Lunchbrunch's angle on people and authority.

lainey_d_123

bladespin wrote: »

I'm currently working at a customer site, a factory with over a thousand people, I'm not wearing a mask, I know I don't need one.

How do you know that? You don't. If you don't get infected, it might just be because nobody there has the virus.

There are hundreds of thousands of cases in London alone and thousands of deaths. I am extremely, extremely likely to come into contact with infected people while going out for a walk, or going to the shop, or even going downstairs in my own apartment block. If I can reduce the chances of infection by wearing a mask or otherwise covering my face, why would I not do that?

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

What is your definition of miniscule?
2.5% of those who have died in Ireland are under the age of 45.

It's age AND vulnerability. But you already know that.

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

A 3rd of confirmed cases of Covid19 in Ireland are health workers.

No one said surgical masks are useless, they are no doubt not the magic mask that you think they are though.

There is a pretty big middle ground between 'don't buy all the masks and leave who need them most (healthcare workers) without them' and 'masks don't do anything if you're not sick'. Why do you keep arguing that the latter is true?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

And now we're arguing over the type of mask. You do understand the concept of risk reduction I presume? HSE advice is to cough into a hanky and if you don't have one, cough into the crook of your arm to reduce the risk of spreading this virus, but a hanky strapped to your face covering your nose and mouth apparently does nada? In very basic order of declining risk, PP3 filters, PP2, surgical masks, homemade masks, nothing. Even a single layer of a homemade cotton mask will reduce large particle spread, which will reduce risk.

It's getting pretty ridiculous now, but I would be largely in agreement with Lunchbrunch's angle on people and authority.

Oh my, you reckon there's no difference between a surgical grade mask and a cotton one? The guidance was clear, it's always been clear.

You are being nothing but an argumentative pedant.

CtevenSrowder

Augeo wrote: »

Oh my, you reckon there's no difference between a surgical grade mask and a cotton one? The guidance was clear, it's always been clear.

You are being nothing but an argumentative pedant.

When did the HSE or WHO argue that wearing facemasks could "make things worse" as you suggested?

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

Oh my, you reckon there's no difference between a surgical grade mask and a cotton one? The guidance was clear, it's always been clear.

You are being nothing but an argumentative pedant.

You really, really need to learn how to read.

His entire post is about the difference between types of masks.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There is a pretty big middle ground between 'don't buy all the masks and leave who need them most (healthcare workers) without them' and 'masks don't do anything if you're not sick'. Why do you keep arguing that the latter is true?

Answer this.......

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t.

With a quote or a link, who is THEY?

Cork Boy 53

bladespin wrote: »

I'm currently working at a customer site, a factory with over a thousand people, I'm not wearing a mask, I know I don't need one.

How do you know this?

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You really, really need to learn how to read.

His entire post is about the difference between types of masks.

I think yopu and Wibbs need to learn how to read, I said the below.....

Augeo wrote: »

Wearing a non surgical mask won't reduce your chance of catching Covid19, regardless of your happiness level.
But that does highlight a point, folk wearing non surgical masks feel they are protected when they actually aren't and are more likely to not follow the 2m guidance etc etc etc.

bladespin

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

How do you know that? You don't. If you don't get infected, it might just be because nobody there has the virus.

There are hundreds of thousands of cases in London alone and thousands of deaths. I am extremely, extremely likely to come into contact with infected people while going out for a walk, or going to the shop, or even going downstairs in my own apartment block. If I can reduce the chances of infection by wearing a mask or otherwise covering my face, why would I not do that?

Nobody know, that's the fact, but I feel quite safe and that's about as good as you can be.

Do whatever helps you get by, if you need to use a mask as a crutch to cope with fear etc, that's fine, just don't suddenly think it's going to stop an infection, that's all.

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not to put you on the spot, but would you be against a healthcare worker in a COVID 19 setting, attending the likes of pubs, concerts, restuarants? After all if everyone was to do social distancing it would reduce the chances of anyone getting the virus - whether they are 95, or 15.

Well I would assume that a healthcare worker would have been subject to all the necessary protection during work, and more importantly be cognisant of the need to stay indoors if they feel unwell. The latter bit is important. If a healthcare worker isn't abiding to hygiene practises etc., then we are in deeper trouble.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When did the HSE or WHO argue that wearing facemasks could "make things worse" as you suggested?

Another poster suggested that, not me...... I've asked for detail on it several times, it's not forthcoming.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113174668&postcount=6855

bladespin

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

How do you know this?

From the very simple fact that, the risk of infection is incredibly low anyway and that there are measures in place to reduce that even further.

Ace2007

polesheep wrote: »

My attitude, and I have been very consistent with it, is that the sick and the elderly should have been looked after first. But you would not be prepared to have them singled out for special attention as you want to have "everyone treated equally."

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

CtevenSrowder

Augeo wrote: »

Another poster suggested that, not me...... I've asked for detail on it several times, it's not forthcoming.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113174668&postcount=6855

Apologies I meant to quote Lainey!

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

What is it that you are proposing? That we continue on with restrictions for how long?

Ace2007

castletownman wrote: »

Well I would assume that a healthcare worker would have been subject to all the necessary protection during work, and more importantly be cognisant of the need to stay indoors if they feel unwell. The latter bit is important. If a healthcare worker isn't abiding to hygiene practises etc., then we are in deeper trouble.

But it shouldn't be left to the healthcare worker to abide to hygiene practice - instead society as a whole should be doing it. Would you not agree.

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else, it will work, but if you say that x cohort or y cohort of people have to isolate or can't be out in public, it just wont' work - be it an elderly person or a healthcare worker.

Ace2007

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What is it that you are proposing? That we continue on with restrictions for how long?

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

castletownman

Ace2007 wrote: »

But it shouldn't be left to the healthcare worker to abide to hygiene practice - instead society as a whole should be doing it. Would you not agree.

As a society if everyone works together for the good of everyone else, it will work, but if you say that x cohort or y cohort of people have to isolate or can't be out in public, it just wont' work - be it an elderly person or a healthcare worker.

I do agree that we all should abide to hygiene practice. My point is that a healthcare worker would have the know-how NOT to mingle in crowd settings if they are feeling unwell- we shouldn't be all held responsible for the actions of others if people who probably shouldn't be out and about do go out and about and end up sick.

We can all make sure we are as hygienic as possible, we can't legislate for those people putting their own health at risk.

CtevenSrowder

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Yes it is better to exclude them then everyone.

If we don't, for how long do we "exclude" the whole of society from doing such things. You need to give some sort of an answer to this.

Ace2007

castletownman wrote: »

I do agree that we all should abide to hygiene practice. My point is that a healthcare worker would have the know-how NOT to mingle in crowd settings if they are feeling unwell- we shouldn't be all held responsible for the actions of others if people who probably shouldn't be out and about do go out and about and end up sick.

We can all make sure we are as hygienic as possible, we can't legislate for those people putting their own health at risk.

But you don't need to feel unwell to have the virus - and that is the key point that people are missing.

polesheep

Ace2007 wrote: »

At this moment in time, if you are in certain residential settings or nursing homes, you may not be tested for the virus - instead you will be treated as having it if you show symptoms. You will not be moved to a hospital instead treated on site. To me that is not equality.

If we as a country practice social distancing correctly and implement it, would the elderly/sick not be equally protected as your or me?

Wrong. Some people are being moved to hospital and some aren't. That call is being made by families in conjunction with doctors. You do realise that some people in nursing homes are very frail and would not benefit from being moved to a hospital. Many are more robust and if they require hospital treatment then they get it.

NH2013

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've outlined it in other posts - society has to work for everyone to get back together. You can't exclude certain cohorts of society.

If an elderly person who has been at home for weeks goes to a pub for instance, they increase their chance of getting it and increase their chance of dying.

If a healthcare worker who has been working no stop on the front line goes to a pub - everyone in the pubs chances of getting it has probably increased, and a by a bigger multiple than the elderly person being in the pub.

So is it right to exclude both the elderly and the healthcare worker?

Yes, it’s targeted, it’s for the greater good.

How do you expect us to pay for the healthcare worker or the pension of the elderly person for the next 18-24 months if we indefinitely lock down all businesses so some don’t feel left out?

Any reduction in lockdown measures will have to be in targeted areas, which might not seem fair to certain groups, to the pub owner if the hardware store owner gets to open 9 months before him, or to the school kids that see others go back to work before they can go to school, or to pensioners and over 70s as they see the rest of the world able to go about their normal day to day business but it’s not a sensible approach at all to advocate that we all wait until the bitter end until all restrictions can be lifted at once so no one feels left out, that’s simply madness.

The lockdown will have to be lifted bit by bit in the least risky areas first and then will follow a gradual return to normality, but it won’t be equally fair on everyone.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Apologies I meant to quote Lainey!

They won't answer, they are happy to spiel on muddying the waters about what they claimed was said without providing a link. We shall never know who "they" are.............

"No, they didn't. They pushed the lie that masks were useless, or even made things worse. A lot of people still believe that. It's clearly absolute bullsh1t."